


> KY: 
ἢ tA 


i ὍΝ ἘΝ 
} > 
a Bais eee 
nthe ὩΣ 


" 
ἐξ fas 


τ 


sh 


ἢ 
ἕ 
τῇ 





éeuxy 


ek a, 


ET, 








ἣν 


ἡ 
pated 
᾿ 











LIBRARY 


OF THE 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 














ef. -HIPPOLS ΤΟ 


AND 


ae A φ 


_ THE CHURCH OF ROME. — 





Just Published. 3 Vols. Price 36s. 


MISCELLANIES, 
LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS 
By CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D. 


BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 


Being Selections from his Works. 





Contents. 


Voi. I.—Pompeian Inscriptions—Athens and Attica—Notes in 
Greece—Notes in France—Notes at Paris—Amiens and St. Theudosia : 
Story of her Canonization—Notes in Italy, and at Rome—The Court 
of Kome and Kingdom of Italy: Its ill-advised policy: Offer from 
a Cardinal—Alexander Lycurgus—Archbishop .Longley: Greek and 
Latin Translation of the Letter of the Lambeth Conference, 1867— 
The Vatican Council: Answer to Pius IX— Whether the Babylon of 
the Apocalypse is the Church of Rome—The Old Catholics at Cologne 
—Erasmus. 


VoL. II.—On the Inspiration and On the Interpretation of the Bible 
—The Revision of the Authorized Version—The New Lectionary 
—Table of Proper Psalms and Lessons—The Book of Common Prayer 
—The Holy Sacraments—Infant Baptism—Holy Communion—Non- 
communicating Attendance — Confirmation — Confession—Ascension 
Day and Rogation Days—Day of Intercession—Special Forms of 
Prayer: Bishop of Truro—Church Music—On Hymns; The Holy 
Year, &c.—Religious Faith and Worship in Art—Cemeteries ; Crema- 
_tion and Burial—On the Intermediate State of the Soul. 


Vot. III.—Religion in Science: Newtonian System—Classical 
Studies ; Theocritus: Horace: Augustan Legislation—“ Ethica et 
Spiritualia’””—Moral and Spiritual Maxims—The Spread of Infidelity 
—Destiny and Decline of Mohammedanism—Bishop Sanderson — 
Ecclesiastical Legislation and Jurisdiction —Diocesan Synods—Church 
Patronage and Simony—Clerical Non-residence— Marriage and Divorce 
—Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister—Clerical Celibacy —Sister- 
hoods and Vows—English Cathedrals : Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral 
—Mission at Lincoln, 1876—Pastoral to Wesleyan Methodists—Burials 
Question—Labour and Capital—Capital Punishment—Continuity of 
the Church of England: St. Hugh, Bishop of Lincolhn—Welcome to 
the Church of America—Brasenose and Lincoln Colleges: Letter to 
Oxford Commissioners—Greek and Latin Translation of the Letter of 
the Hundred Bishops at the Lambeth Conference, 1878—Letter to the 
Archbishop of Cyprus. 





RIVINGTONS, 


London, Orford, anv Cambrivge. 
[C—61.] 











ς « 


c ece e « δ ad 
« 
ce ς 


ΒΤΑΤΙΓΕ δ: SC RIPPDINTES οι ὁ 


Dug up in the Ager Veranus at Rome 
near the Chapel of St Lawrence outside the walls, 
in the year 155l,in the Pontificate of Pope Pius IV. 
See below Chap.IV. P 29 





sa 


Inscription on the back of the Statue of S*Hippolytus 
presenting a list of some of his writings 


ae 


γ-: --Ξ 








fA AMOYC 
1—<—— “FTAC TPIMYOON 
ΞΖ ὙΠΕΡ TOY KATA IW 
a ~ANHN 

ΕὙΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ KAI ANO 
| KAAYYVEG@C 


ΠΕΡΙ XAPICMATON 
alee eben oS NAPAAO . 


XPONIKQON 
NPOC EAAHNAC 


ΚΑΙ MPOC ΠΑΤΩ͂ΝΑ 
Ἢ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ TOY NANTOC 
ΠΡΟΤΡΕΠΤΙΚΟΟ MPOC CE 
BHPEINAN | 
AMNOAEIZIC XPONON | 
TOY MACXA | 
| KATA ΕΝΤΩ MINAKI | 
'WAALIC MACAC TAC FPA 
_@AC 
ΠΕΡΙ OY KAI CAPKOC 
ANACTACE@C τ 
ΠΕΡΙ TATAQOY KAI 
ΠΟΘΕΝ TO KAKON 


sole apres tte τὰ ci - . 
On these titles of writings of StHippolytus see Fabricius in his 
Edition of Hippolytus Vol.I p.79-89, Cave Hist. Lit.I. p.104—106. 
And see below Chap. XIII. 


--.-- 


‘ 
᾿ 
‘ 

















Digitized by the Internet Archive 


in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


. https://archive.org/details/sthippolytuschurOOwordrich 


ST HIPRPOLYTUS 


AND 


THe CHURCH OF ROME 


IN THE 


Garlier Part of the Third Centurp. 


FROM THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED ‘‘REFUTATION OF ALL 
HERESIES.” 


BY 


CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D. 


BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 


SECOND, AND GREATLY-ENLARGED EDITION. 


RIVINGTONS, 
WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON, 
@rford anv Cambrivge. 


MDCCCLXXX. 





᾿ 
/ 


PREPAC E. 


THE present Volume is a new work rather than a 
new edition. 

The additions—which form about half of it—refer 
mainly to what has been written on the subject of it 
by learned men after the publication of the former 
edition ; and in the other half new materials have 
been inserted. 

Since that time I have also examined the Manu- 
script, which was discovered in a monastery of Mount 
Athos in 1842, and which is now at Paris; and I 
have collated that portion of the Manuscript which 
relates to the history of the Church of Rome in the 
earlier part of the third century, and which is 
inserted, with a Translation and Notes, in the present 
Volume. 

Events which have taken place at Rome since the 


publication of the first edition of this work,—especially 


221646 


vi PREFACE. 


in 1854 and 1870,—have given additional importance 
to the questions considered in this volume ; which is 
now put forth in a hope, that it may, with the divine 
blessing, serve, in some degree, to the elucidation of 
an interesting, but not well-known, portion of Church 
History, and also to the maintenance and advance- 


ment of Christian Faith and Unity. 


EASTER, 1880. 


CONTENTS: 


CHAPTER I. 
PAGE 
The recent discovery of the ““ Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of all 

Feresies” . : , 3 : ; ‘ : : ay ἢ 
CHAPTER II. 

Who was its Author? Was Origen? . : A ς : ae 
CHAPTER ITI. 

Another name considered—Caius . : : : : : «. 126 


CHAPTER IV. 
Another name suggested—St. Hippolytus. His Statue at Rome . 29 


CHAPTER. ¥V. 


Objections to this Suggestion considered . : ‘ : : . 44 


CHAPTER VI. 


Narrative in the newly-discovered Manuscript concerning the Church 
of Rome in the Author’s own time ; with Translation and Notes. 61 
The Author's Address to the Heathen . ‘ A i : . IoI 


CHAPTER VII. 


Some Objections to the veracity of his Narrative considered. . 130 


CHAPTER VIIL 
Other Objections to the Author's veracity considered : ‘ . 146 


vill CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


CHAPTER IX. 


On Novatianism ; and on the relation of St. Hippolytus to it; and 
on the Hymn of the Christian Poet Prudentius on the Martyrdom 
of St. Hippolytus. On the ancient Statue of St. Hippolytus . 158 


CHAPTER X. 


Further remarks on Novatian and Novatianism ; and on the rela- 
tion of St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria to them and to 
St. Hippolytus . , : Ἵ : Ξ 4 ‘ . 173 


CHAPTER XI. 


Silence of Ancient Church Historians. Objections from it considered 181 


CHAPTER AM. 
Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus . : : : : : . 208 


CHAPTER XIII. 
Ancient Lists of Works of St. Hippolytus . ; : : + 232 


CHAPTER ATV: 
Orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus . ‘ : : : ; Ξ . 241 


CHAPTER XV. 
LE piscopal See of St. Hippolytus . ‘ : ; : ‘ - 255 


CHAPTER XVI. 


On the “Development of Christian Doctrine,” as tested by the 
writings and acts of St. Hippolytus . : : : ᾿ . 1 


CHAPTER AVI, 


On the present Claims of the Roman Church to Supremacy and In- 
fallibility, as tested by the writings and acts of St. Hippolytus  « 281 


CONTENTS. ix 


PAGE 
APPENDIX A. 
A Fragment of a Work of St. Hippolytus 6. : : - 306 
APPENDIX B. 
Evidence that the recently-discovered Treatise was known to and used 
by Theodoret in the fifth century : . : : : . 309 


APPENDIX τς, 
A Conjecture on a passage in the Ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of 
St. Polycarp, disciple of St. Fohn . . : : : Meet 
APPENDIX D. 


On a passage of St. sae Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho 
the Few . a P : : : : » 318 





ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Statue of St. Hippolytus . : : : : . FRONTISPIECE I 
Inscription on the back of the Statue of St. Hippolytus FRONTISPIECE 2 


Specimens of the Paris MS. of the Refutation of all 
LHerestes : : ; : : : : : To face p. 61 





CHAPTER I. 


The Recently Discovered “Philosophumena ; ov, 
Refutation of all Heresies.” 


THE discovery of a theological work, dating from so 
early a period as the first half of the third century, 
is an important ‘event in the History of the Christian 
Church. It is one which we have been permitted to 
see. 

A learned Greek, Minoides Mynas, having been 
despatched by M. Villemain, Minister of Public In- 
struction in France under King Louis Philippe, with a 
commission to make researches in Greek Monasteries 
for ancient MSS., brought back some literary treasures 
of this description from Mount Athos in the year 1842. 
Some of these were deposited in the Royal Library at 
Paris ; and among them was a Greek MS. written in 
the earlier part of the fourteenth century, on paper, 
containing 137 leaves, which was first: carefully 
examined by M. Emmanuel Miller, already known to 
the world from his official position in that national 
collection, and distinguished by the courtesy with 
which he has promoted the designs of foreigners 

B 


2. Ζ2Ζ22 RECENTLY FOUND PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 


desirous of access’ to its literary riches, and by the 
publication of some remains of ancient Literature. 
The work in question was prepared for publication 
under the editorial superintendence of M. Miller, who 
states that it was written by a certain Michael, as 
_appears from a Greek sentence at the close of the MS. : 
it was first printed at the instance and under the en- 
couragement of the Delegates of the University Press 
at Oxford, where it appeared in the year 1851—rather 
more than sixteen centuries after its composition. 

This Volume, thus resuscitated, has been found to 
possess special claims to public attention. It is 
valuable from its antiquity, and from its contents: it 
is valuable as a philosophical work, and also as a 
theological and historical one. 

It consisted, when perfect, of Ten Books. Of those 
ten, the second and third, and the commencement of 
the fourth, do not appear to be now extant. The 
first Book is not contained in the Parisian MS., but 
had been already known to the world from a MS. of 
Cardinal Ottoboni, and from three other MSS., and 
had been printed in the Benedictine edition of the 
works of Origen.’ 

The design of its Author was to give an account in 
the first four Books, of the various systems of ancient 
Philosophy, physical and ethical. This portion was 


1 To which the present writer had occasion to bear testimony some 
years since. Diary in France, pp. 90. ΙΟΙ, 2nd edit. 1846. 

2 Vol. i. pp. 872—909, ed. Paris, 1733. It was first printed from a 
Medicean MS. in vol. x. p. 579, of Gronovii Thesaurus Ant. Greec. 

3 The following is the Author’s description of his own work, lib. x. 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 3 


intended to be introductory to the rest. The writer 
then proceeds to treat of the various heresies in order 
of time, which had appeared in the Christian Church, 
from the first promulgation of the Gospel, down to his 
own age. Here then, in the fifth book, the work 
becomes theological, and here it is his purpose to show 
that (as St. Irenzeus* and Tertullian ὅ had observed) 
the dogmatic systems of heretics had their foundation, 
—not in Scripture,—but in the schools of Heathen 
Metaphysics. He disputes their claim to originality, 
and treats them as plagiarisms from Pagan Philosophy. 
The circumstances now stated, with regard to the 
materials of which this work is composed, will suggest 
the reason why it bore a double title. It is inscribed 
“ PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 07, a REFUTATION of all HERE- 
SIES.”° The former of these two titles describes the 
contents of the first four Books—the second title 
designates the succeeding five; and both titles are 
applicable to the last or tenth Book, which is an 
Epitome of the others ; and concludes with a declara- 
tion of the truth, in an address to the Gentile world. 
In the sixth and seventh Books the Author is 


Ῥ. 311: συμπεριλαβόντες τὰ πάντων τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφῶν δόγματα ἐν 
τέσσαρσι βιβλίοις, τὰ δὲ τοῖς αἱρεσιάρχαις ἐν πέντε, νῦν τὸν περὶ 
ἀληθείας λόγον ἐν ἑνὶ (Cod. ἕνα) ἐπιδείξομεν, ἀνακεφαλαιούμενοι πρῶτον 
τὰ πᾶσι δεδοκημένα. 

Φ S. Iren, ii. xiv, 2. 

& Heereticorum Patriarchz Philosophi, says Tertullian c. Hermogen. 
c. 8, illi sapientiz professores de quorum ingeniis omnis heeresis 
animatur. De Anima, c. 3. 23. De Preescr. Heret. c. 30. See also 
S. Jerome, Epist. 84, where he speaks of Tatian and others, who had 
traced heresies to philosophical sects. 

6 φιλοσοφούμενα, ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. 


Β 2 


4 THE RECENTLY FOUND PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 


often treading on the same ground as that traversed 
by St. Irenzeus in his work on Heresies, to whom he 
acknowledges his obligations (p. 202. 222), and from 
whom he frequently transcribes, either verbatim, or 
with some modifications. And here we may observe, 
in passing, is a circumstance which imparts a peculiar 
value to the newly-discovered Treatise. In some 
instances it presents to us the original Greek of 
Irenzus, where till now we possessed only the Latin 
Version. The recovery of this work is a recovery, in 
part, of the text of Irenzeus. In some places, it will 
enable a future Editor or Irenzus to restore Irenzus 
to himself.” 

The last two Books of this Volume are those which 
impart to its discovery an historical importance, which 
it is not easy, at present, adequately to appreciate. 
Time alone can show in all its bearings the impor- 
tance of this work, composed sixteen centuries ago, 
and discovered in the nineteenth century in a 
monastery of Greece, by a Greek sent from Paris by 
the French Government, and presented to the world 
for the first time, under the editorship of a French 
scholar, in an English University. Time, it is pro- 
bable, will prove that the hand of a wise and 
merciful Providence may be seen in its preservation, 
and also in its publication at the present juncture in 
the history of the Church and the World. 


7 Some evidence of this may be seen in p. 203 of the Philosophumena, 
and following pages. See also the passages cited in the Ecclesiastic, 
LXVII. p. 47. 


* 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 5 


On what grounds, it may be inquired, are such 
anticipations based? Because this newly discovered 
work unfolds, in the ninth Book, a portion of ancient 
Church-History with which hitherto we have had 
comparatively but little acquaintance, from the lack 
of materials for an accurate knowledge with respect 
to it. The writer lived ata period prior to that of our 
most ancient Ecclesiastical Historians. He was 
anterior to Eusebius by a century. He does much to 
fill up a chasm in the Annals of the Western Church. 
And the portion of Church-History with which he 
deals is one of great importance, on account of its 
relation to certain questions of Christian Doctrine and 
Church Discipline, which possess more than ordinary 
interest, and exercise more than common influence, at 
the present time. 

The writer places us at Rome; he describes, with 
graphic minuteness, events which took place in the 
Church of Rome in the second and third centuries 
after Christ. His work was composed soon after the 
Episcopate of Callistus who died A.D. 223. He does 
not speak on hearsay ; but as an eye-witness. And 
not only so, he represents himself as occupying an 
important position in the Church of Rome at that 
time, and as taking a prominent part in the events 
which he narrates. In a word, we have here a 
Bishop of the Roman Church, in the third century, 
presenting us with a Memoir of his own Time. 

Inasmuch as this portion of the work is of a special 


8 See Philosophumena, pp. 291, 292, ed. Miller. 


6 THE RECENTLY FOUND PHILOSOPHUMENA. 


character, and forms a substantive whole, and possesses 
peculiar claims on public attention, it appeared to 
deserve consideration, whether it might not be 
detached from the rest, and offered separately to the 
English reader in his own language, as well as in the 
original Greek. 

Hence the present publication. 

The Author of the newly-discovered work might 
now be left to speak for himself, and to recite his own 
history ; and it would be irrelevant and aimost pre- 
sumptuous to anticipate him, even by a brief summary 
of his narrative. But, as has been already observed, 
we have here an Author professing to be a Roman 
Bishop, and presenting us with a “ History of his own 
Time.” Have we herea Roman Huet? Have we, 
some may say, a Roman Burnet of the third century? 
Is his recital trustworthy? This is an important 
question. The reply must depend on the writer’s 
character. And to determine this, we must ascertain, 
who is the Author? what is the evidence of his 
veracity ? 

This let us endeavour to do. 


CHAE LE ROE, 


The Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of all Heresies— 
ats Author. 


THE copies of the edition, printed at Oxford in 1851, 
of the Treatise * before us bear in their exterior the 
name of ORIGEN on their back. The learned Editor, 
M. Miller,and some other erudite scholars, maintainthat 
it was written by Origen. Some of the copyists, also, 
who transcribed it many centuries ago, assigned it to 
Origen. And we read, also, the words “doctrine of 
Origen,” noted by an ancient hand in the margin of 
the Volume.’ And the frst book of it, which (as 
was before observed) had been already known to the 
world, has been ascribed to him in no less than four 
MSS., and had been admitted into Editions of that 
Father’s Works.’ 
Is it then from the pen of ORIGEN ? 


! The title is, Npryévous φιλοσοφούμενα, ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. 
Origenis Philosophumena, sive Omnium Heresium Refutatio: e Codice 
Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel Miller. Oxonii, e Typographeo 
Academico, 1851, p. 339. 

2 P. 334. ᾿Ωριγένης καὶ ᾿Ωριγένους δόξα. 

3 Origenis Opera, ed. Car. Delarue, iv. voll. Paris, 1733. Vol. I. 
pp. 873—909. 


8 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 


To this question we would reply in the nega- 
tive. 

Ι. It has been a common practice, in ancient and 
modern times, to ascribe works,—especially anony- 
mous works,—to illustrious persons. A book, wan- 
dering about the world without a name, is, and ever 
has been, an unattractive thing. Such Books had a 
tendency to acquire for themselves the name of a 
creditable author, just as, in course of time, nameless 
pictures assume the name of some well-known 
Master. The same motives which tempted some 
persons, who possessed more leisure than honesty, to 
compose. works, and then to father them on great 
men, induced copyists and dealers in Manuscripts to 
assign celebrated names to the works which they 
themselves had transcribed or had purchased, and 
exposed to sale* The name of Origen was the 
likeliest to occur to a person who was in quest of an 
Author for the present Treatise. Origen lived at the 
time from which this Treatise dates, and at which 
its Author flourished. Origen wrote in Greek. Origen 
was also a voluminous Writer. He was well versed 
in systems of Philosophers, as well as in theories of 
Heretics ; and, therefore, it would appear probable, 
that any anonymous Greek treatise—such as that 
before us—might be more safely assigned to Origen 
than to any one else; and that it would pass under 
his name without further inquiry. A list of works, 
erroneously assigned to Origen, may be seen in the 

4-See Bentley, Dissert. on Phalaris, pp. 6—8, ed. Lond. 1777. 


Α 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES—ITS AUTHOR. 9 


“ Origeniana” of Huet,® who states various reasons 
for such an ascription. We shall have occasion to 
observe hereafter, that another anonymous work, 
similar in some respects to the present, was from the 
pen of the same writer as composed the present 
Treatise, and that it was ascribed to Origen. 

2. With regard to the words “ Doctrine of Origen,” 
inscribed by some ancient Copyist on the margin of 
a passage in this Treatise,—these do not appear to 
afford any argument (as has been supposed by some) 
for the ascription of this work to Origen, but rather 
the contrary. Silius Italicus, it is well known, was 
an admirer and imitator of Virgil, as Virgil was of 
Ennius. We should be much surprised to find, in 
MSS. of the “ Punica” of Silius, the words “ Versus 
Silii” noted at the side of one of the lines in that 
Poem, as we should be surprised to find a marginal 
note, “ Versus Maronis,” annexed to a line of the 
Aéneid. But we should not be astonished to find the 
words “Versus Virgilii” appended as a marginal 
comment to a line of Silius; or to read the words 
“ Versus Ennii” annexed to a line of Virgil. But we 
should not thence infer that the “Punic War” was 
written by Virgil, or that the A‘neid was composed 
by Ennius, or that the marginal annotator had ima- 
gined that this was the case—but the contrary. 
And so the words, “ Doctrine of Origin,’ do not 
appear to intimate, that in the copyist’s opinion “ the 


5 Appendix to lib. iii. in the ivth Volume of the Benedictine Edition, 
Ῥ. 321. See also the Preface to that edition, p. xiii. 


10 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 


Philosophumena” was written by Origen, but that 
it was. composed by some person who (in his view) 
had imitated or expressed the opinion of Origen, in 
that particular passage to which the marginal note 
was annexed. 

3. The first book of the Philosophumena has, it is 
true, been inserted in editions of Origen’s works. 
But the editors of Origen have avowed their belief 
that the Treatise is not his:*° and the recent dis- 
covery of the main portion of the remainder has 
confirmed their judgment. 

Their opinion that the work is not by Origen was 
grounded on a passage occurring in the first Book,’ 
where the Author describes himself as “a successor 
of the Apostles, a partaker with them in the same 
grace and principal sacerdocy,® and doctorship, and 
as numbered among the guardians of the Church.” 
These words, they very justly observe, could only 
have been employed by a Szshop, speaking of him- 
self. Origen was zot a Bishop; and he was distin- 
guished by modesty, as well as by learning. He 
would not, therefore, have written thus. Therefore, 
the Author of the Philosophumena is not Origen. 

4. Again: Origen, it is true, visited Rome at a 
particular time which falls within the period described 


6 Origenis Opera, i. p. 873, ed. Bened. 1733. Huet. Origeniana, iii. 
Appendix xi. vol. iv. p. 527. 

7 Philosophumena, p. 3, 1. 63, ed. Miller. 

8 ἀρχιεράτεια. Compare the language of Tertullian de Bapt. c.17: 
‘*Dandi baptismum quidem habet jus semmus sacerdos, qui est 


Episcopus.” 


Par | 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES—ITS AUTHOR. τι 


in the present Volume. He came to Rome in the 
Pontificate of Zephyrinus ; but his visit was of brief 
duration.” Origen was only a sojourner at Rome 
for ashort time; but the Author ofthe present Treatise 
appears to have spent the greater part of his life at 
Rome, or near it. It is clear, from the narrative 
contained in the portion of the Philosophumena laid 
before the reader in this Volume, that the Writer 
was at Rome, or its neighbourhood, before the Pontifi- 
cate of Zephyrinus, that he remained there during 
that Pontificate—which was not a short one, but 
lasted about sixteen years—and that he continued 
there till after the death of Callistus, the successor 
of Zephyrinus. Therefore, this Treatise was not 
written by Origen. 7 

5. Besides: the Author of the Philosophumena 
describes himself as holding an important office in the 
Roman Church; he represents himself as having 
exercised ecclesiastical discipline there, and as having 
separated certain persons from Church-communion 
by sentence of excommunication.’ 

Nothing of this kind could be said of Origen ; 
therefore we are again brought to the conclusion that 
the treatise before us was not written by him. 

6. Men’s opinions alter ; their tempers are liable to 
change; but facts are immutable. Hence, in this 

9 ἔνθα οὐ πολὺ διατρίψας, says Euseb. vi. 14. Origen is said, by St. 
Jerome (de Vir. Illust. c. 61, and by Nicephorus Callist. iv. 31), to 
have been among the hearers who listened to a sermon by St. 


Hippolytus. 
1 Book ix. 12, p. 290. 38. 


12 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA: 


question of authorship, it appears more safe to dwell 
on circumstantial evidence, than to lay stress on 
discrepancies of thought and manner, visible in this 
Treatise, when contrasted with what is seen in un- 
doubted works of Origen. 

Yet such characteristics merit consideration. And 
they serve to confirm the opinion already stated, that 
the Volume before us is not attributable to him. 

7. For example ; our Author’ speaks at large of 
the Noetian heresy, and its adherents, who dwelt on 
certain detached’ and isolated words of Scripture, 
and, relying on them, contended * that the First and 
Second Persons of the Blessed Trinity are only two 
different Names of the same Divine Being. ‘His 
language, concerning these parties, is that of one 
who had recently had experience of the evils to 
which their false teaching led, and who had been 
engaged in a painful struggle with the abettors of 
that heresy. 

But how different is the tone of Origen when 
treating of the same subject! In a spirit of calm 
philosophy, of ingenious tolerance, and inventive 
charity, he suggests circumstances of extenuation, 
and almost pleads for the erring while he deplores 
their errors. He observes, what was doubtless true, 
that the Noetians recoiled from an opposite heresy, 
which disparaged the dignity of the Son, and degraded 


2 Lib. viii. pp. 276, 2773; ix. pp. 278—2091. 
3S. Hippol. c. Noet. iii. apud Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. p. 52. 


ταῦτα βούλονται οὕτω διηγεῖσθαι, καὶ αὐτοῖς μονόκωλα χρώμενοι, ---- 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES—ITS AUTHOR. 13 


Him to the level of an ordinary man, animated by 
the Spirit of God, and that thus, through fear of an 
heretical dogma, they had lapsed unconsciously into 
heresy.‘ 

This was a liberal view. It was suited to the posi- 
tion and genius of Origen, who beheld the strife 
from afar. But it was not to be expected from one 
who was actively engaged in the battle. And, how- 
ever this may be, certainly nothing can be more 
different than the temper and tone with which the 
Patripassian heresy and its promoters are regarded 
and described in the works of Origen on the one side 
and in this “ Refutation of all heresies” on the other. 
He who wrote the former could hardly have written 
the latter. Therefore again it would appear that the 
Author of the present treatise is not Origen. 

8. One more remark of this kind. The opinion of 


4 Origen, in Matth. t. xvii. ὃ 14, says that they err φαντασίᾳ τοῦ 
δοξάζειν χριστόν, and in Johan., tom. ii. c. 2, calls them φιλοθέους εἶναι 
εὐχομένους, and offers also some apology for them as εὐλαβουμένους δύο 
ἀναγορεῦσαι θεοὺς, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο παριπίπτοντας ψευδέσι καὶ ἀσεβέσι 
δόγμασι, vol. i. p. 92. Lommatzsch. See also Origen, Fragm. ex libro 
in Epist. ad Titum, ed. Lommatzsch V. 287, ne videantur duos deos 
dicere, neque rursum egare Salvatoris Deitatem, wunam eandemque 
subsistentiam Patris ac Filii asseverant, z.e. duo quidem nomina 
secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν 
subsistere, z.¢. unam Personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, qui 
Latine Fatrifassiani appellantur. Origen’s success in dealing with 
Beryllus of Bosra is well known, Euseb. vi. 33. 5. Jerome de Viris. 
Illust. c. 60, and was probably due to his Christian temper not less 
than to his profound learning. οὐκ ἂν ῥητὰ καὶ ἄῤῥητα λέγοιμεν ἂν τοὺς 
ἄλλα δοξάζοντας, he says, c. Cels. v. p. 273, οὐκ ἂν ἀποστυγήσαιεν τοὺς 
παραχαράττονταΞ τὰ χριστιανισμοῦ, he says in a spirit which can hardly 
be reconciled with the language of the present Treatise. 


14 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ; 


Origen with regard to future punishments is well 
known. The same feelings which induced him to 
palliate the errors of heretics, beguiled him into 
exercising his ingenuity in tampering with the decla- 
rations of Scripture concerning the eternal duration 
of the future punishment of sin.® 

But the author of the newly discovered Treatise 
speaks a very different language. He does indeed, 
at the close of his work, address an affectionate in- 
vitation to the heathen world. He portrays, with 
glowing and rapturous eloquence, the dignity, blessed- 
ness, and glory of those privileges which would be 
theirs, if they were Christ’s. He describes the im- 
mense love of God in Christ to the world, and /His 
earnest desire for their salvation, and he exhorts them 
to accept God’s gracious offers, and to enter the 
Church of Christ. But he does not pause there. He 
presents to them in dark colours another alternative. 
He describes the woe and the anguish to which they 
will be doomed, if they refuse to hearken to God. 
He displays the boiling surge of the never-ebbing 
lake of fire,* and the excruciating agonies of those 
who are lost. He labours to prevail on them to 
escape from the wrath to come, and to attain the 
happiness of the blessed, by declaring to them, in 
God's name, that the pains of hell and the joys of 
heaven are not temporal, but eternal.’ 


5 See Origen, 19. Homil. in Jerem. tom. iii. p. 267. De Princ. i. 6. 

§ Philosophumena, p. 338. 4, βρασμὸν ἀενάου Alurns. 

7 Compare the similar statements of doctrine by St. Irenzeus, iv. 78 ; 
γ. 27. 


OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES—ITS A UTHOR. 15 


Such is his mode of dealing with that subject. 
Probably enough has been said to satisfy the 
reader that the author of the Treatise before us is 


not Origen. 


Let us pass to another name. 


CHAPTER IIL 


Another Name considered. 


IT is a remarkable circumstance, that very few of the 
Roman Poets were nativesof Rome. Catullus, Virgil, 
Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Persius, were born in provincial 
towns of Italy. Many, also, of the Roman Poets, as 
they are commonly called, were not natives of the 
Italian soil. Africa gave birth to Terence; Lucan, 
Seneca, and Martial, were from Spain. The same is 
true also of the most distinguished Orators, Philo- 
sophers, and Historians, whose names are generally 
connected with that of Rome. Scarcely one of the 
most eminent Roman writers was born at Rome. A 
similar remark may be made with regard to the early 
Ecclesiastical writers and distinguished men of the 
Latin Church. Few were connected by birth, or even 
by residence, with Rome. And of the eleven 
Bishops who governed the Church of Rome during 
the first two centuries, two only appear to have had 
any reputation for literary attainments: St. Clement, 
whose Epistle to the Corinthian Church still survives, 
and whose native country is uncertain; and Victor, 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 17 


supposed to have been of Africa, who is regarded as 
the first Ecclesiastical Author who wrote in the Latin 
tongue.’ The inscriptions on the tombs of the earlier 
Bishops of Rome, buried in the Catacomb of Callis- 
tus,are Greek.” There are very few names, of literary 
celebrity, which are in any way connected with the 
Roman Church in the first three centuries of the 
Christian era.’ 

Hence it would appear to be a not very difficult 
task to discover the Author of the Treatise before us. 
He also puts into our hands three clues for his identi- 
fication—not to speak of others at present. Herepre- 
sents himself— 

1. As a Bishop ; 

2. As taking an active part in the Ecclesiastical 
affairs of Rome; and 

3. As having written other Works, whose titles he 
specifies. 

Who was there, let us ask, that corresponded to 
this description ? 

The name of Origen, suggested by the title, being 


1 S. Hieron. de Viris Illust., c. 34. 40. 53. 

2 May I be allowed to refer to the description of them in my Tour 
in Italy, i. pp. 177—183? 

3 The Historian Sozomen, who wrote early in the fifth century, asserts 
that no Bishop of Rome nor any Ecclesiastic preached to the people in 
his age. Sozomen, vii. 19, and see the note of Valesius on the passage ; 
and it is commonly asserted that no Bishop of Rome delivered Sermons 
or Homilies in public before Leo I., in the middle of the fifth century ; 
but this seems to be hardly reconcilable with the statement of Prudentius | 
(born A.D. 348), Hymn. xi. 25 :— 


Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal 
Tollitur, Avtistes predicat unde Deum. 


18 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


dismissed as untenable, perhaps the first person who 
would present himself to the mind of an inquirer as a 
candidate for the authorship of this Treatise, would be 
Catus. He is known to have been a Presbyter of the 
Roman Church in the episcopate of Zephyrinus ;* and 
the Author of this Treatise lived in the age of Zephy- 
rinus. Caius is also known as a learned and eloquent 
man, and as having conducted a theological disputa- 
tion, probably by the appointment of Zephyrinus,* 
with Proclus, a leader of the Montanists at Rome, and 
to have gained honour by the ability which he dis- 
played on that occasion. From the fragments which 
remain of his controversial argument, we learn that he 
wrote in Greek; and we are informed, that, being a 
Presbyter of Rome, he was promoted to the Episcopal 
order.° 

Thus he appears to satisfy some of the most impor- 
tant conditions of the present case. 

Another point, also, may be noticed here. 

1. Among the Works which the writer of this 
Treatise specifies as having been produced by him- 


* Euseb. ii. 25; vi. 20. Phot. Cod. 48. Zephyrinus was Bishop of 
Rome from A.D. 202 to A.D, 218. Jaffé Regesta Pontificum, p. 5. 

§ Hence, perhaps, the assertion of Optatus i. 9: Marcion, Praxeas, 
Sabellius, Valentinus et czteri usque ad Cataphrygas temporibus suis a 
Victorino Pictaviensi, Zephyrino Urbico (1. e. Episcopo Urbis Rome), 
et a Tertulliano Carthaginensi et aliis adsertoribus Ecclesize Catholicz 
superati sunt. 

6 Phot. Cod. 48. τοῦτον τὸν Γάϊον πρεσβύτερόν φασιν γεγενῆσθαι 
τῆς κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐκκλησίας ἐπὶ Οὐΐκτορος καὶ Ζεφυρίνου ἀρχιερέων, 
χειροτονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον : but there is reason, as 
we shall hereafter see, to think this assertion ought rather to be applied 
to another person,—Hippolytus. 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 19 


self, is one entitled “On the Substance of the 
Universe.”? 

Can we, then, ascertain the Author of that Work— 
“On The Universe’’? 

Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople,—the 
Statesman, Scholar, and Divine, of the ninth century, 
in that rich storehouse of ancient literary lore, the 
‘ Library” or bibliographical record,* which he wrote 
when on a diplomatic mission as an ambassador in 
Assyria, and in which he describes the contents of the 
books he had read, refers to a Work,® called “‘ The 
Labyrinth ”—so named (it appears) because its Author 
endeavoured to track certain heretical teachers through 
their devious mazes, and to enable others, who might 
be entangled in their windings, to extricate themselves 
from them. 

From the notice given by Photius of “The Laby- 
rinth,’ we learn, that the Author of it referred his 
readers to another work of his own composition—a 
work “On the Substance of the Universe.”? 

By whom then was “The Labyrinth” written? 

If we can discover this, we shall have ascertained 
the Author of our own Treatise ; and of the Treatise 


7 p. 334. 78. εἴσονται, ἐντυχόντες ἡμῶν βίβλῳ περιεχούσῃ περὶ τῆς τοῦ 
παντὸς οὐσίας. 

8 See Fabricius, Harles. x. p. 678. 

9 Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48. 


1 ἐν τῷ τέλει TOD λαβυρίνθου διεμαρτύρατο ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι τὸν περὶ τῆς 
τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας λόγον. This work, says Photius (Cod. 48), was 
entitled in some MSS. περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, in others, π. τ. τ. 7. 
οὐσίας : in others, περὶ τοῦ παντός. He appears to have seen various 
MSS. of it. 

C2 


20 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


on the Universe. Indeed, if the question concerning 
the authorship of any one of these three Treatises is 
settled, the question also would seem to be decided 
concerning the other two. 

On reference to the words of Photius, already 
noticed, it would seem at first sight that we have there 
a solution of the problem. 

The Labyrinth, writes Photius, has been ascribed 
to Origen,* but “ they say that it is by Carus.”* 

Photius then mentions that the Author of the Laby- 
rinth referred to the Treatise on the Universe as 
written by himself.* 

Here our first impression would. be that the ques- 
tion before us was now set at rest. 

We feel disposed to acknowledge CAIUS, the cele- 
brated Roman presbyter of the second and third 
century, as the Author of the newly-discovered Trea- 
tise, and of the two other works that have been men- 
tioned, from the same pen. 

But when we proceed to examine the evidence more 
closely, we find reason to retract, or, at least to 
suspend, our judgment. 

Photius appears to hesitate, except as to the iden- 
tity of the Author of the Labyrinth and of the Trea- 
tise on the Universe. 


2 See also Theodoret. heeret. fabul. ii. 5. 

3 Phot. Cod. 48. Γαΐου, ὅν φασι συντάξαι. καὶ τὸν λαβύρινθον. 
He is reporting ¢eir opinion when he adds, Γαΐου ἐστὶ πόνημα τῇ 
ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ συντεταχότος τὸν λαβύρινθον. 

4 Ibid. ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ λαβυρίνθον διεμαρτύρατο ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι τὸν περὶ 
THs τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας λόγον. 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 21 


He had the Treatise on the Universe as well as the 
Labyrinth in his Library. He describes its contents.’ 
He says that this Treatise having been left anony- 
mous, had been attributed by some to Josephus,® by 
others to Justin Martyr, and by others to Irenzus, and 
that in a marginal note in his MS., it was assigned to 
Caius, “who, they say, wrote the Labyrinth, the author 
of which states at the end of it that he wrote the work 
on the Universe.” 

“ But (says Photius) whether it was written by Caius, 
or by another,—+s not yet manifest to me.’ 

Thus then, we do not feel justified in awarding this 
work, and the other two connected with it, to CA1US, 
on the authority of Photius. 

2. Other considerations also may deter us from 
making such an assignment. 

Notices of Caius have been left by Eusebius and St. 
Jerome. It is their practice to specify the titles of the 
works written by the persons whom they commemo- 
rate. They mention the disputation of Caius against 
Montanism. But neither Eusebius nor St. Jerome 
mentions any one of these three works just specified, 
as written by Caius. 

It would not be surprising that ove of these three 
works should not have been noticed by them in their 
account of the author of the three; but it is very 
improbable that a// the three should have been omztted 


5 Cod. 48. 
6 Tbid. 
7 οὔπω μοι γέγονεν εὔδηλον. 


22 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


by them Jozi ; especially in the case of such a person 
as Caius, who was a distinguished man, but not (as 
far as we know) a voluminous writer. 

It is not, therefore, probable that Caius wrote these 
three works; and since they were all written by the 
same author, therefore none of them was written by 
Caius ; and therefore it would seem, on this ground, 
that we must look elsewhere for the Author of the 
newly-discovered Treatise before us. 

3. Again ; the Treatise before us was written after 
the Episcopate of Zephyrinus ; for it speaks of his 
death, and after the death of his successor.® 

The disputation of Caius with Proclus the Wontanist 
took place in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus ; and the 
impression we receive from Church History is, that 
the reputation of Caius was mainly derived from 
his success in that controversy. It appears to have 
been the principal public event of his professional 
life. 

The Author of the newly-discovered Treatise, which, 
it is to be remembered, is designed to be a History of 
all Heresies, as well as a Refutation of them, refers to 
other works written by himself. 

Now, at the close of his Eighth Book, he comes to 
speak of Montanus, and of the Montanistic tenets. 
He treats their heresy very lightly and briefly ; indeed 
he hardly regards it as a heresy ;° and takes care to 


8 P, 288. 96, μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτήν : pp. 291, 292, and after 
the death of Callistus, 
® Philosophumena, p. 275. He calls them αἱρετικώτεροι, sud- 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 23 


inform his readers that the Wontanists are orthodox in 
the main articles of the Faith. 

If a person had taken up arms against Montanism 
as Caius did, and if he had composed and published 
a Work in refutation of Montanism as Caius had 
done, and if his name had been honourably associated, 
and almost identified, with the controversy which 
the Church carried on against Montanus, it does not 
appear to be probable that he would have spoken of 
Montanism so lightly as the Author of this Treatise 
does speak. 

And if the Author of this Treatise had written 
against Montanism, it is probable, that, since he says 
so little on that subject in this Treatise, and since it is 
his practice to refer his reader to his other works as 
supplementary to the present, he would have referred 
to his work on Montanism for further information on 
that matter. In a word, either Caius would not have 
spoken of Montanism, as the Author of this Treatise 
speaks ; or, if he had spoken as he does, he would 
have said something more on that subject than this 
Author does say. 

Therefore, on this ground also, we may infer that this 
Treatise was not written by CAIUS. 

4. Besides, the Author of this Treatise, as we have 
seen, touches briefly on Montanism in the Eighth 
Book. He then passes on to another heresy, that of 


Leretici ; and adds, οὗτοι τὸν μὲν Πατέρα τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πάντων 
κτιστὴν ὁμοίως τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁμολογοῦσι, καὶ ὅσα τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ὯΝ 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαρτυρεῖ. 


24 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


the Encratites ; and, after a few words upon them, he 
brings the Eighth Book to a close. 

And how does he begin the Ninth ? 

With a special Preface, a somewhat elaborate one, 
in which he states, that having described various 
Heresies, and having refuted them in the preceding 
Books of this Treatise, he is now entering a new field 
in the WVznth Book, and is approaching the most. 
difficult toil of all. And what is that? To refute the 
Heresies that arose zz his own time.’ 

He does not regard Montanism as a heresy of his 
own time. 

But Caius took an active part in refuting Mon- 
tanism. It was by his refutation of it that he had 
gained his renown. Caius would never have described 
Montanism as a heresy of the past. He would not, 
and could not have written, concerning it, as this 
Author writes. 

Therefore, again, we are brought to the conclusion 
that this Treatise was not written by CAIUS. 

5. Once more. The Montanists against whom 
Caius argued, referred to the Afocalypse of St. John, 
as affording Scriptural authority to their prophetical 
rhapsodies and millenarian reveries. Caius, who 
seems to have been eminent for zeal, not always 
guided by discretion, appears to have encountered 
this argument by questioning the genuineness of the 


1 See Book IX. pp. 278, 279. The English reader may see the 
passages at length in the Translation inserted in chapter vi. of the 
present Volume. 


τ 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 25 


Apocalypse? And, there is too good reason for 
believing that he was carried so far in his animosity 
against the fanatical dogmas derived by the Mon- 
tanists from the Apocalypse, that he was not satisfied 
with denying the genuineness of that Book, but he 
even proceeded to the length of ascribing it to a 
heretic, Cerinthus. 

If it should appear improbable that such an error 
as this should be committed by a distinguished person 
like Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, let it 
be remembered that, as was before observed, the 
Church of Rome was not eminent for learning at that 
time. Let it be remembered also, that the Church of 
Rome herself was induced by a similar fear of 


2 As this is doubted by some learned persons, who say that Cerinthus 
composed Revelations (cp. Theodoret. heret. fab. 11. 3), in which 
he put forth chiliastic opinions, and that all that was denied by ‘‘some 
in the Church was that these were written by St. John” (see Tillemont 
Mem. Hist. Eccl. iii. 176); let it be observed that it is evident from the 
testimony of Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, in Euseb. vii. 25, when 
rightly punctuated, that the genuineness of the Afocalypse had been 
denied by some in the Church, and that it had also been ascribed by 
them to Cerinthus, who (they said) had assigned it falsely to St. John, 
in order to gain currency for his own millenarian opinions under the 
authority of St. John’s name. And that Cazws was among those persons 
in the Church to whom Dionysius refers, appears (I conceive) from 
Euseb, iii. 28, where, after mentioning that Caius had alleged that 
Cerinthus sought to gain credence for his Chiliasm under the authority 
of ““ Revelations, as if written by a great Apostle,” he immediately pro- 
ceeds to cite the words of Dionysius concerning the Afocalypse of St. 
John, as quoted also in another place (Euseb. vii. 25). See also Mill 
Proleg. in N. T., 654; Grabe, Spicileg., t. i. p. 312; Lardner, Works, 
i. 637; Dollinger, Hist. of the Church, i. 190, in Oxenham’s trans- 
lation ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., § 59 ; who affirm that Caius denied the 
genuineness of the Apocalypse. 


“ 


26 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


erroneous consequences,’ to surrender another Canoni- 
cal Book of Holy Scripture—The Epistle to the 
Hebrews.* The learning of the Church was then 
mainly in the East. It was by the influence of the 
East on the West, that the Church of Rome was 
enabled to recover that Epistle. It was also the 
influence of the Apocalyptic Churches of Asia, exerted 
particularly through St. Irenzus and his scholar St. 
Hippolytus in the West, that preserved the Apo- 
calypse, as an inspired work of St. John, to the Church 
of Rome. 

It becomes then a question for consideration in 
reference to the present Treatise,— 

Does the Author speak of the Apocalypse? If so, 
in what terms? 

In the Seventh Book® he is dents the hereti- 
cal opinions and licentious practices of the Nico- 
laitans. 1 

He thus writes. “ Nicolas, one of the seven who 
was ordained to the Diaconate by the Apostles, was 


3 First of Montanism, then of Novatianism. Philastr. de Heeres., 
§ 80. 

4 It does not appear in the ancient Canon of the Roman Church 
(Routh, Rel. Sac., iv. p. 2); and St. Jerome says, iii. p. 60 (ed. Bened.), 
‘‘ Epistola ad Hebrzeos quam Latina consuetudo non recipit ;” he says, 
ii, p. 608, ‘‘ Eam Latina consuetudo non recipit ;” but he says ‘‘ inter 
Scripturas Canonicas ab Ecclesiis Orientis suscipitur et ab omnibus retrd 
Ecclesiasticis Greeci sermonis scriptoribus.” Dionysius Bishop of 
Alexandria, before the middle of the third century, acknowledged it as 
St. Paul’s, Euseb. vi. 41. 

ΦῬ, 258. 

6 πολλῆς δὲ αὐτῶν συστάσεως κακῶν αἴτιος γεγένηται Νικόλαος, εἷς 
τῶν ἑπτὰ εἰς διακονίαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς, ὃς ἀποστὰς τῆς 
κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν διδασκαλίας ἐδίδασκεν ἀδιαφορίαν βίον τε καὶ γνώσεως. 


τα 


ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 27 


the cause of their great conglomeration of evils, who, 
having fallen away from sound doctrine, taught indif- 
ferentism of morals and of knowledge.” 

The rest is important, but the text is somewhat 
corrupt. 

The original in the Paris Manuscript is as follows : 
ov τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐνυβρίζον τὸ τὸ “Αγιον Πνεῦμα διὰ 
τῆς ᾿Αποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου ἤλεγχε πορνεύοντας καὶ 
εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίοντας.ἷ 

The sense clearly is, “ Whose disciples, 2 4. the dis- 
ciples of Nicolas... . the Holy Spirit upbraiding 
rebuked by the Afocalypse of St. Fohn, committing 
fornication, and eating things offered to idols.” 

He refers to the Book of Revelation, ii. 6. 14, 15. 
He quotes it as inspired, and as the work of St. 
John.® 

This passage, like many others in the Treatise be- 
fore us, is almost a transcript from the work of St. 
Irenzus against heresy :° and thus, as was before 

7 P. 259. 95. M. Miller reads οὗ robs μαθητὰς ἐνυβρίζοντας τὸ ἅγιον 
Πνεῦμα διὰ τῆς ᾿Αποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννης ἤλεγχε : but probably the second 
τὸ is to be cancelled. In the present Treatise, p. 265 and p. 287 ed. 
Miller, ἐνυβρίζω is similarly used with an accusative. See the writer in 
the Ecclesiastic, No. lxvii. p. 57. 

8 It is observable that the Author of the Treatise on the Universe 
appears to refer to the Apocalypse. See Fabric. Hippol., i. 220: λίμνη 
πυρός, K.T.A. 

9 The passage in Irenzus isi. 27: ‘‘ Nicolaitee magistrum quidem 
habent Nicolaum, unum ex VII, qui primi ad diaconiam ab Apostolis 
constituti sunt: qui indiscrete vivunt; plenissimé autem per Yoannzs 
Apocalypsim manifestantur qui sint, nullam differentiam esse docentes in 
meechando et idolothyton edere. Quapropter dixit et de iis Sermo Sed 


hoc habes quod odisti opera Nicolaitarum que et Ego odi.” (Apoc. ii. 6.) 
Cp. Iren. iii. 11. 


28 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 


- noticed, it helps us to the original Greek of that 
venerable writer, in many places where we possess 
him now only in the old Latin version. 

It may also be added, that the text of our Treatise 
may be often corrected from Irenzus.’ 

St. Irenzeus, we know, had a great veneration for 
the Apocalypse, and quotes it very frequently (about 
thirty times) as inspired, and as the work of the holy 
Apostle and Evangelist, St. John. Our Author was 
evidently a diligent reader of St. Irenzus ; and, in 
the passage before us, he follows Irenzeus in acknow- 
ledging the Genuineness and Inspiration of the Apo- 
calypse. 


Here then, as it seems, we have sufficient proof, 
that the Author of this Treatise is not CAIUS of 
Rome.” 


1 Parallels between our Treatise and Irenzeus are quoted by 
Duncker in his edition of the ‘‘ Philosophumena, or Refutation of all 
Heresies,” Gotting. 1859, p. 554. 

2 Also, what has been said in this chapter, compared with what will 
be said in the next, suggests reasons for demurring to the ingenious 
theory of a learned writer in the Journal of Philology (Vol. I. No. 1, 
Ρ. 98), that Caius and Hippolytus are one and the same person. 


ΠΤ TV: 


Another Name suggested. 


IN the year 1551, some excavations were made at 
Rome in the part of the Eastern Suburb called “ Ager 
Veranus,” near an ancient church of St. Hippolytus, 
on the Via Tiburtina, or road to Tivoli, not far from 
the church of St. Lorenzo.’ The clearing away of 
the accumulations of an ancient Cemetery and Chapel 
on that site led to an interesting discovery. A 
marble Statue of a figure sitting in a Chair was 
brought to light.” The person there represented was 
of venerable aspect, bald, with a flowing beard, and 
clad in the Greek pallium. 

The two sides and back of the Chair were found to 
be covered with Inscriptions in Greek uncial letters. 
The right side of the Chair exhibits a Calendar, 
which designates the days of the months of March 
and April, with which the xivth of the moon coin- 
cides. This Calendar, indicating the Paschal Full 
Moons, is constructed for seven cycles of xvi years 


' See Tillemont, Mémoires, iii. 24. 
2 See the engraving prefixed to this volume. 


80 _ ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


‘each, dating from the first year of the Emperor 
Alexander Severus, which is proved from this Calen- 
dar to have been* A.D. 222. These Tables are formed 
on the suppositions (which are erroneous) that after 
eight years the full moon recurs on the same day of 
the month, and that after fifty-six years it recurs on 
the same day of the week, and they represent in seven 
columns the day on which the full moon falls during 
seven periods of sixteen years. 

The other side of the Chair presents a Table, indi- 
cating the Day on which the Easter Festival falls in 
each year for the same period of seven cycles of 
xvi years, dating also from A.D. 222. When, the 
xivth day of the moon falls on a Saturday, then the 
Easter festival is not to be celebrated on the morrow, or 
following Sunday, but on the Sunday after that. This 
regulation was.in accordance with the Latin practice, 
but at variance with the Alexandrine custom,‘ accord- 
ing to which the Paschal Festival might be solemnized 
from the xvth day of the moon. This Paschal Table, 
also, is constructed in seven columns of xvi years each, 
and indicates the day of the month in which the 
Paschal Festival would fall, from A.D. 222 to A.D. 333. 

Many things in this Calendar betoken that it is 
the work of a Western,® and that it was designed for 
use in the Western Church. 

3 See Clinton, Fasti Romani ad A.D. 222. 

4 See Ideler, Chronologie, ii. p. 220. 


5 Ideler, Chronologie, ii. p. 213: Dass er im Ogcident lebte wird 
durch die von ihm befolgte rémische Zeitrechnung ausser Zweifel 


gesetzt. 


Pe 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 31 


The carved Back of the Chair, which was some- 
what mutilated, presents a Catalogue of Titles of 
Works—composed doubtless by the person who oc- 
cupies the chair.® 

This Statue thus’ discovered was in a fragmentary 
state, but was happily preserved by Cardinal Marcello 
Cervino, afterwards Pope Marcellus II., and was 
removed as a valuable monument of Christian Anti- 
quity to the Vatican, and was restored by the aid of 
Roman Sculptors, as far as might be, to its pristine 
form, under the auspices of Pope Pius IV., and is now 
in the Lateran Museum at Rome.’ 

The Paschal Table inscribed on the sides of the 
Chair dates, as has been stated, from the beginning 
of the reign of Alexander Severus. 

He ascended the imperial throne A.D. 222, when 
Callistus was Bishop of Rome,—about two years 
after the death of Zephyrinus, the Predecessor of 
Callistus, that is to say, in the period described by 
the Author of the Treatise before us, who represents 
himself as living under Zephyrinus and his successor ; 
and who in this work, which is entitled “A Refuta- 
tion of all Heresies,’ mentions zo heresy subsequent 
to that age. 

Among the titles of Books inscribed on the Chair, 
we find the following—“ On the Universe.” ἢ 


§ See the inscription prefixed to this volume, and below chap. xiii. 

7 A representation of the three sides of the Statue and of the i inscrip- 
tion upon them may be seen in the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius, 
pp. 36—38; p. 74, folio, Hamburgh, 1716. 


8 περὶ τοῦ παντός. 


92 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


The Author of the recently-discovered Treatise (as 
was before noticed) refers to a book bearing ¢hzs title, 
as written dy himself. 

Can we, then, ascertain who the personage, repre- 
sented by the statue, is ? } 

If so, we have a clue to the authorship of our 
Treatise. | 

In reply to this question, let it be observed, that 
Eusebius and St. Jerome’ have left Catalogues re- 
spectively of Works composed by an eminent person, 
one of the most eminent for theological learning and 
eloquence of that age. 

Suffice it to say, that in those Catalogues they 
specify a Paschal Cycle of sixteen years, similar to 
that on the Statue. 

They specify also other Works, which tally in the 
main with the Catalogue on the Statue. Whatever 
discrepancies there may be in the Catalogues, arise 
from omissions in one of what is inserted in one or 
both of the other two: and thus these discrepancies 
are of service, as showing that the Catalogues are, 
in some degree at least, independent of each other. 

Therefore, the Writer, whose works Eusebius and 
St. Jerome are describing, is the same as the Person 
represented in the Statue. 

The Author whose Works Eusebius and St. Jerome 
are enumerating, is St. HIPPOLYTUS. 

He then is the person represented in the Statue. 

1. This conclusion is confirmed by other evidence 


9 Euseb. vi. 22. 9. Hieron. de Viris Illust. 61. 


. 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 33 


The person represented in the Statue is that of a vene- 
rable figure, sitting in a chair as a Christian Teacher. 
Hippolytus, it is well known from Eusebius and St. 
Jerome, was a Bishop of the Church. The Statue 
was found on the spot described in a hymn of the 
Christian Poet, Prudentius,'! as the site where, after 
a celebrated Teacher of the church called Hippolytus 
had suffered martyrdom at a place Portus,—that is, the 
port or harbour of Rome, at the mouth of the river 
Tiber,—a monument was erected to his memory. 
A church bearing the name of St. Hippolytus anciently 
stood there. The Cemetery where the remains of the 
Hippolytus who is celebrated in that hymn by Pru- 
dentius, were buried, was near the Church of Lorenzo, 
where the Statue was discovered. In the life of Pope 
Hadrian I.,? it is recorded that “he repaired the 
Cemetery of St. Hippolytus, near the Church of 
Lorenzo, which had long fallen into decay.” Hence, 
it is evident that the person represented in the Statue 
found in 1551, is the venerable Bishop, the Saint and 


1 Prudentius de martyrio Sancti Hippolyti, Peri Stephanon, Hymn. 
mi. 152: . 

‘“Roma placet sanctos que teneat cineres. 
Haud procul extremo culta ad pomeeria vallo— 
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis.” 

In v. 220 the author describes a neighbouring temple, of which the 
ruins are said by Baronius to have been extant in his time. See Fabric. 
Hippol. i. p. xix, note. 

2 Pope from A.D. 772—795. Anastasii Liber de Vitis Pont. in 
Hadrian I. A church of St. Aippolytus is described by an ancient 
writer on the “ Regiones Urbis,” apud Mabillon, Analecta Vetera, p. 365, 
as standing on the Via 7iburtina, near the Church of S. Laurence. See 
also the authorities in Ruggieri de sede S. Hippolyti, pp. 473, 474, 476. 


D 


34 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


Martyr of the Roman Church in the third century, 
St. Hippolytus. : 

Accordingly, when the Statue was removed to the 
Vatican, it was there received as a Statue of St. 
Hippolytus, and the following inscription, declaratory 
of its purport and discovery, and of its restoration by 
Pope Pius IV., and assigning to Hippolytus the title 
of “Bishop of Portus,” the harbour of Rome, was 
engraved on its pedestal, 


STATVA 
»: HIPPOLY TY! 
PORTVENSIS EPISCOPI 
OVI VIXIT ALEXANDRO 
PIO. IMP. 

EX VRBIS RVINIS EFFOSSA 
A PIO. III. MEDICEO 
PONT. MAX. 
RESTITVTA. 


2. The Catalogue on this Statue of Hippolytus 
specifies (as we have said) a work “Ox the Universe.” 

The Author of our Treatise on Heresy mentions (in 
p- 334) a Work on the Universe as written by himself. 

Therefore, on this ground we may infer that the 
writer of our Treatise is St. Hippolytus. 

3. Next, it may be added, both Eusebius and St. 
Jerome mention “a Treatise against all heresies,” as 
written by Hippolytus.’ 

ὃ. Euseb. vi. 22. πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις. 5. Hieron. de Viris Illust. 


c. lxi.: ‘‘ Adversus omnes Heereses.” The title of our work is, 
φιλοσοφούμενα, ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. 


τ 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 35 


Hence also it would seem to be probable that the 
Author of the newly-discovered Treatise which is 
entitled “a Refutation of all Heresies,’ is St. H1p- 
POLYTUS. 

And, if this is the case, then it appears that the 
discovery of an ancient Statue, near Rome, more than 
three hundred years ago, will have served as a clue for 
ascertaining the Author of a Treatise disinterred 
from a Monastery in Mount Athos in 1842; and will 
have aided us in the attainment of certain important 
results (as we shall see hereafter) consequent on that 
fact. 

Let us therefore proceed to consider whether the 
opinion, now stated as probable, that the present 
Treatise was written by St. Hippolytus, may be cor- 
roborated by other proofs. 

Various works are now extant, which are attri- 
buted to St. Hippolytus, and they have been inserted 
as such, in the edition of his writings published by 
Fabricius. One of these—his homily against the 
heresy of Noétus, (published by the late Dr. Routh in 
his Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula, i. 49), re- 
markable alike for sound theological learning and 
manly eloquence, contains, as we shall see hereafter, 
many paragraphs similar to passages in the present 
Treatise. So, as we shall also see, does the work “on 
Antichrist” ascribed to him. But, let us reserve 
what is to be said on them to a later period in the 
inquiry, and let us construct our argument on what 
is unquestioned and unquestionable. 

D2 


86 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


4. Let us bear in mind what the time and place 
are with which we are concerned in the present inquiry. 

The Author, whoever he may be, lived in the 
Church of Rome, in the end of the second and earlier 
part of the third century. He does not write in the 
language of Rome, but of Greece. And his work 
proves him to have been a learned and eloquent man. 
If what he narrates of himself be true, he had com- 
posed various other works, he was a copious writer, 
and he held a high position in the Roman Church 
for many years.. 


Few persons correspond to this description. Indeed, 
we might almost say that no one does—except at. 
Hippolytus. 

Our Treatise (as we have seen) divides itself into 
two portions. 

1. A view of the Philosophical Systems that had 
prevailed in the Heathen World. 

2. A Refutation of the Heresies that had arisen in 
the Christian Church. 

Hence, the twofold title, “ Phzlosophumena ; or a 
Refutation of all Heresies.” 

1. With regard to the first of these titles ; it is 
observable that St. Hippolytus is called by ancient 
writers “a sacred Philosopher,’* and it is said, that 
he was eminent “in Christian Phzlosophy.” 


* Georg. Syncell. in Chronog. ad A.D. 215, as quoted in 5. Hippol. 
ed. Fabr., i. p. 42. See also S. Jerome, Epist. ad Magn. 70, et ad 
Lucin. 71, where he celebrates Hippolytus for his proficiency in 
Philosophy. 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 37 


It would seem then that he had written some 
Philosophical work, which entitled him to this appel- 
lation. Such a work is the present, as its name 
intimates. 

Let us now refer to the Second title, the “ Refuta- 
tion of all Heresies.” 

As we have already seen, Eusebius and St. Jerome 
attest that a Work “ Against all Heresies” was written 
by Hippolytus. 

The same is affirmed by numerous other ancient 
Authors.’ : 

2. We are also informed, that St. Hippolytus*® 
spoke in strong terms of censure against Nicolas, one 
of the VII. Deacons, as well as against the Nicolaitans 
—an observable circumstance, because many of the 
ancient Fathers, viz. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, 
Eusebius, and Theodoret did indeed reprobate the 
Nicolaitans and their Heresy, but exempted Nicolas 
the Deacon from blame.’ 

Now, in a passage already cited (p. 27) from the 
Treatise before us,> we have seen that the Author 
censures both Nicolas and the Nicolaitans ; as Hip- 
polytus is said to have done. 


6 Georgius Syncellus in Chronog. A.D. 215. Chronic. Paschal. 
Alexandrin. Ρ. 6. Nicephorus, Callisti Hist. Eccl., iv. 31, ascribes to 
Hippolytus, σύνταγμα πρὸς πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις βιωφελέστατον. S. 
Epiphanius, Heer. xxxi. c. 33, refers to Hippolytus as one of his pre- 
decessors in refuting Heresy. 

6 Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232, ποίας ὑπολήψεις εἶχεν Ἱππόλυτος 
περὶ Νικολάου τοῦ ἑνὸς τῶν ¢ διακόνων, καὶ ὅτι ἰσχυρῶς αὐτοῦ KaTa- 
γινώσκει. 


7 Gobar. ap. Phot. Bibliothec., Cod. 232. δ p 258. 


38 P ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


3. We have also seen that the Author, in that 
passage, as in many others of this Treatise, copies St. 
Irenzeus. 

Now,among the scholars of Irenzus, we are informed 
by Photius, was Hippolytus.’ 

The time in which our Author lived, the mode in 
which he deals with the work of Irenzus, make it 
probable that he was reared under his training. He 
writes like a scholar of Irenzeus. 

Again, we saw in the passage, just noticed, from 
our Treatise, a testimony to the genuineness and 
Inspiration of the Apocalypse. He speaks concern- 
ing the Apocalypse as a scholar of St. Irenzeus would 
speak.’ 

4. We have contrasted that testimony with the 
mode in which Caius the Roman Presbyter treated 
the same Book—the Book of Revelation. Caius, we 
know, flourished in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, that 
is, he was contemporary with—perhaps a little senior 
to—our Author ; and not merely was contemporaneous 
with him, but resided at the same place, that is, in or 
near Rome. 

The Author of our Treatise received and revered 
the Apocalypse. 

Let us now turn to the Catalogue of the titles of 
Works inscribed on the back of the Statue of St. 
Hippolytus.? 


9 Phot. Cod. 121, Μαθητὴς Εἰρηναίου ‘Immdautos. 
1 See above, chapter iii. p. 27. 
? See the frontispiece to the present Volume and below chap. xiii. ; 


a 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 39 


There we read the following :—“ A defence of the 
Gospel according to St. John and of the Apocalypse.”® 

Hence we see, that whatever might be the dispo- 
sition of his Roman contemporary Caius, Hippolytus 
acknowledged the Apocalypse as a work of the 
Evangelist St. John. 

Nor is this all. In the Chaldee Catalogue of the 
Works of Hippolytus,* is one, entitled, “Chapters of 
St. Hippolytus, against Caius.” 

It is true that Fabricius and some other learned 
men have conjectured that this is an erroneous tran- 
script, and that the true reading is “against the 
Caianites,”’—heretics of that name. For why, they 
ask, should Hippolytus have written against his con- 
temporary Caius, who refuted heresies ? 

But why, we may reply, should we desert the 
received reading? ‘The fact is clear, that some per- 
sons in the Western Church had questioned the 
authority of the Apocalypse. Why otherwise should 
Hippolytus defend it? If Caius, the Roman Presby- 
ter, treated the Apocalypse as we have seen he did 
(chap. iii.), and yet enjoyed the reputation he did in 
the Church of Rome, it is probable, that many in the 
Roman Church (misled it is probable by zeal against 
Montanism) looked on the Apocalypse with suspicion 


and compare Gruter. Inscript. 140 ; Le Moyne’s Varia Sacra, i. p. 496 ; 
S. Hippol. ed. Fabricii, i. p. 38; Cave, i. 104; Bunsen, ‘‘ Hippo- 
lytus and his Age,” i. pp. 288, 289. 

3 “γπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην Ἐῤαγγελίου καὶ ᾿Αποκαλύψεως. 

4 By Hebed Jesu. See 5. Hippol. ed. Fabric., i. p. 224. 

5 Fabric. Bibl. Greec. Harles., vii. p. 197, ed. Hippol., i. p. 224. 


40 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


What more reasonable, then, than that Hippolytus 
his contemporary, the scholar of Irenzus the disciple 
of Polycarp the hearer of St. John the beloved disciple 
of Christ, when writing a defence (as we know he did) 
of the Apocalypse, should address it to Caius, in order 
to warn him and others of his error, and to endeavour 
to rescue them from it ? | 

However this may be, certain it is, that the Author 
of our Treatise censured Nicolas, as well as the 
Nicolaitans ; and that he had no doubts as to the 
genuineness and inspiration of the Apocalypse. 
Certain it also is, that in both these respects, as in 
many others, he followed Irenzus. 

It is also evident, that St. Hippolytus did the 
same ; and that he was a scholar of Irenzus. 

Hence, then, we recognize some further confirma- 
tions of the previous probability that our Author is 
St. Hippolytus. 


Let us consider, by way of recapitulation, the per- 
sonal history of the writer of this Treatise. 

5. He writes, and writes eloquently, in Greek, and ᾿ 
yet, as this Treatise shows, he lived in the Western 
Church. . . . Besides this Treatise against all Heresies, 
he wrote a Work “Ox the Universe.’ He resided at 
Rome, or near it, under three successive Bishops at 
least, that is, in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, of 
Callistus, and of his successor, Urbanus, perhaps 
longer.” He was a Bishop, and speaks of his conse- 


6 Book ix. passim. 


if 


ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 41 


quent obligation to refute heresy, and to maintain the 
truth.’ He exercised Church discipline, in resisting 
false doctrine, and in.separating open and obstinate 
offenders from Communion with the Church.* He 
describes,’ with the graphic liveliness of one who had 
been a spectator, or had heard a description of those 
who were eye-witnesses of it, a remarkable scene which 
took place at Portus, the harbour of Rome. 

All these and other particulars which might be 
noticed, correspond with what we know of Hippolytus. 
His name is not of Latin origin, but Greek. Being a 
scholar of Irenzeus, he was probably of Eastern ex-. 
traction. And all Antiquity witnesses that he wrote 
in Greek. He composed a “Refutation of all 
Heresies,’ and a “Treatise on the Universe.” He 
lived under Zephyrinus, Callistus, and his successor, 
probably later. Hippolytus was, also, a Bishop and 
Martyr. There is reason, as we shall hereafter see, to 
believe that Hippolytus was designated as a “ Bishop 
of the nations” (ἐπίσκοπος ἐθνῶν) and that he resided at 
Portus, or Roman harbour, to which the people of 
many Nations flocked as a great commercial Empo- 
rium ; he is often called by ancient writers, a Roman 
Bishop, and even (in the language of those days) a 
Bishop of Rome.’ He was also a Martyr, and is com- 

7 Book i. p. 3. 


8 See p. 290, where the Author uses the plural we, speaking of Aim- 
self. See the Rev. T. K. Arnold’s Theol. Critic. vol. ii. p. 597. So 
P- 334, 78, ἡμῶν βίβλῳ. 

° P. 286. 

1 See the authorities in he edition of St. Hippolytus by Fabricius, 


42 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 


memorated as such.inthe Roman Martyrologies.? As 
such he was honoured by one of the noblest Statues 
of a Christian Ecclesiastic in ancient Christian times. 
As such he is venerated in the Roman Breviary, and 
was received into the Vatican Palace, and now into 
the Lateran Museum, sitting in his marble Chair, 
—as a Teacher of the Western Church. 

Lastly, this newly-discovered Treatise has now been 
acknowledged to be the work of St. Hippolytus the 
Scholar of St. Irenzeus, the Bishop and Martyr of the 
Roman Church, the most learned and eloquent of the 
writers of that Church in the earlier part of the Third 
century, by the concurrent judgment of some of the 
most eminent theologians, Roman Catholic as well 
as Protestant; such as Dr. Von Dodllinger, Bishop 
Lightfoot, Dean Milman, Archdeacon Churton, Canon 
Robertson, Baron Bunsen, Dr. G. Volckmar, Dr. 
Gieseler, Professor Jacobi, Dr. Schaff, and others ; 
and this Treatise has been published as a genuine 
work of St. Hippolytus by Dr. Duncker at Gottingen 
in 1859. The testimony on this matter may be 
i. Ῥ. vili—x, and p. 42—47, Ruggieri de sede S. Hippolyti, p. 478— 
493, 518—525. 

2 On the ides of August, Aug. 13, (ed. Baronii, p. 360—362) Rome 
beati Hippolyti Martyris qui pro confessionis glorid sub Valeriano 
Imperatore post alia tormenta ligatis pedibus ad colla indomitorum 
equorum per carduetum et tribulos crudeliter tractus toto corpore 
laceratus emisit spiritum ; extra portam Tiburtinam in agro Verano 
sepultus. Cardinal Baronius testifies to the existence of a Church of St. 
Hippolytus, near that of St. Lawrence. 

This is in harmony with the account of Prudentius in his hymn of St. 
Hippolytus. The name of Hippolytus, with some other circumstances 


which appear to belong to our Hippolytus, occurs also in the Roman 
Martyrology on August 22. 


_ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 43 


summed up in the words of Dr. Von Doéllinger.’ 
“That the celebrated Doctor of the Church, Hippo- 
lytus, was the Author of the newly-discovered Work 
on the Heresies, is declared simultaneously and in- 
dependently by the majority of those who have inves- 
tigated this question.” 


A Treatise, therefore, like the present, coming from 
St. Hippolytus, and recovered almost miraculously 
in the middle of the nineteenth century, is entitled to 
respectful attention, especially from the Western 
Church. And it may reasonably be expected to 
receive it. 


3 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pag. i. Regensburg, 1853. 


CHAPIER V: 


Objections Considered.—Photius and others. 


A CONSIDERABLE amount of evidence may be 
adduced to authorize the ascription of a Work to a 
particular writer, and such evidence may be sufficient 
to produce conviction, when considered by itself; and 
yet, when the question is subjected to further exami- 
nation, and arguments are adduced on the other 
side, that conviction may be weakened, and the mind 
may waver concerning the soundness of its former 
persuasion. 

We have been engaged in considering the ques- 
tion,— 

To whom is the newly-discovered Treatise on 
Heresy to be assigned ? 

We have been led to observe, that the Candidates 
for its authorship cannot be numerous. We have 
examined the pretensions of two Competitors— 
Origen, and Caius of Rome, who appeared at first 
to have strong claims on our attention. We have 
seen that the Work could not be adjudged to either of 
them. 


. 
a 


OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.—PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 45 


Another name was then adduced,—that of ST. 
HIpPOoLyTus. And there seemed to be sufficient 
reason for awarding this Volume to him. 

This part of our task has been performed with 
comparative ease. Others have smoothed the way. 
More than a year ago, a learned English Theolo- 
gian, speaking of this newly-discovered Treatise, 
assigned it to St. Hippolytus ; and, since that time, 
a Work has been published, which adduces some 
cogent arguments in favour of the same opinion, by 
a writer long known to the world—the Chevalier 
Bunsen.’ 

But “ Audi alteram partem” is the counsel which 
is suggested by experience in questions of this de- 
scription. We cannot justly feel satisfied with any 
conclusion, till we hear what may be adduced against 
it. And it is not to be denied, that, in the present 
case, there is much to be said which might seem at 
first to be of sufficient weight to constrain us to sus- 
pend our judgment, if not to incline it in another 
direction. 

Let us, then, address ourselves to the considera- 
tion of this other evidence. 


1 The late Archn. Churton, page xxvii of the. Preface to his. Edition 
of Bp. Pearson’s Vindiciz Ignatianze, where he calls this, Treatise 
‘‘Opus nuper felicibus Academiz Oxoniensis auspiciis publica luce 
donatum, Christiane Antiquitatis cultoribus acceptissimum, Ovigents, 
ut titulus preefert, sive ut mihi cum Viris compluribus bene doctis 
probabilius videtur, S. Hzppolyti.” This preface is dated vii. Kal. Feb. 
MDCCCLII. 

2 In the First Volume of ‘‘ HIPPOLYTUS and his AGE,” by Ὁ, C. J. 
Bunsen, D.C.L., Four Volumes, Lond, 1852. 


46 OBFECTIONS C ONSIDERED.— 


1. The learned Patriarch of Constantinople, Pho- 
tius, had in his Library a Work ascribed to ST. HIp- 
POLYTUS: and it wasa Work “ AGAINST HERESIES.” 

In his bibliographical Journal, composed in Assyria, 
Photius describes it thus.* | 

“A biblidarion” (a diminutive of Little book) “ of 
Hippolytus—was read to me.* Hippolytus was a 
Scholar of Irenzeus. This Book is a ‘ Treatise against 
Thirty-two Heresies ;’ it begins with the Dositheans, 
and goes down to Noetus and the Noetians : and the 
Author says, that he composed it asa synopsis of 
Lectures® delivered vivé voce by Irenzus, in refu- 
tation of these heresies. There are some things 
deficient in accuracy in this book,—one is the asser- 
tion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by the 
Apostle St. Paul.” ® 


3 Phot. Cod. 121. ἀνεγνώσθη βιβλιδάριον Ἱππολύτου" Μαθητὴς δὲ 
Εἰρηναίου ὃ Ἱππόλυτος᾽ ἦν δὲ τὸ σύνταγμα κατὰ αἱρέσεων λβ΄. ἀρχὴν 
ποιούμενο; Δοσιθεανοὺς καὶ μέχρι Νοητοῦ καὶ Νοητιανῶν διαλαμβάνον (sic 
Bekker, pro vulg. διαλαμβανόμενον) ταύτας δέ φησιν ἐλέγχοις ὑποβλη- 
θῆναι ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου, ὧν καὶ σύνοψιν 6 Ἱππόλυτος ποιούμενος τόδε 
τὸ βιβλίον φησὶν συντεταχέναι... .. λέγει δὲ ἄλλα τε τινὰ τῆς ἀκριβείας 
λειπόμενα, καὶ ὅτι ἣ πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου 
Παύλου. 

4 It is well known to have been a common practice of students in 
ancient times rather to hear books read to them by slaves called ana- 
gnoste, than to read them with their own eyes. The lament of Cicero 
for the death of his anagnostes will occur to the reader. Hence 
perhaps the phrase of Photius ; but he may have been his own reader. 

5 These Lectures were probably prior to the V. Books,—or rather 
portions of V. Books,—of Irenzus against Heresies, now extant, which 
were published at intervals A.D. 180—185, according to Bp. Pearson, 
Diss. Post. ii. xiv. p. 527. Perhaps the date should be carried lower : 
the third book was written under Eleutherus (iii. 3), whose Episcopate 
is extended by some to A.D. 192. Jaffé, Regest. Pontif. p. 4. 

6 Cp. Euseb., vi. 20, where he says that Caius also did not acknow- 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 47 


Here, then, we are met by a difficulty. 

Photius had a Work before him—a Work on 
Heresy—a Work written by St. Hippolytus. He 
proceeds to describe it. How does it correspond with 
the Treatise before us? 2715 Volumeis a Little book— 
a single βιβλιδάριον ; ours isa large one: it consists 
of ten βιβλία or books. His was a Treatise against 
thirty-two heresies. Ours isa refutation of all heresies. 
His began with the Dositheans, and ended with the 
Noetians ; ours begins its catalogue of heresies with 
the Naassenes, and ends with the Elchasaites. His 
professed to be a compendium of oral discourses by 
Irenzus ;’ ours makes nosuch announcement. Inthe 
Treatise which Photius read, Hippolytus said that the 
Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul. 
In the books which remain of our Treatise, there is 
no such assertion.° 

2. Can, therefore, our Treatise be the same Work 
as that read by Photius? 

It has been said by a learned writer’ that there is 
no doubt of their identity. But, on consideration of 


ledge the Epistle to be by St. Paul, and even yet (adds Eusebius) some 
at Rome do not receive it as St. Paul’s. 

7 It could not have been a compendium from the written Treatise of 
Irenzus against Heresy, in V. Books ; for no mention is made there of 
the Dositheans or Noetians. 

8 These difficulties have been well stated by a learned writer, the 
present Dean of Rochester, in an able Articlein the Rev. T. K. Arnold’s 
Theol. Critic, vol. ii. p. 524. 

9 M. Bunsen says, p. 16: ‘* The description (given by Photius) 
tallies so exactly with the book before us, that it cannot have been given of 
any other.’ Again, p. 25: ‘* The rest of the account given by Photius 
is positive and accurate enough to prove that we have the work he speaks 


48 : OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


the evidence, few, it is probable, will concur in 
that opinion. No Procrustean process of pressure 
can make a Treatise in ten books to coincide with the 
single /ittle book described by Photius. 

3. Besides,—looking at the contents of our Trea- 
tise, we find a copius account of proceedings which 
took place in the Church of Rome in our Author’s 
lifetime, and in which he had an active share. Con- 
sidering the nature of those proceedings, any one who 
remembers the relation of Photius, Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, to the Bishop of Rome and the Roman 
See, and who recollects his long and vigorous struggle 
against what he regarded as its usurpations, will feel 
a strong persuasion, that if Photius had ever had 
before him the narrative contained in this Treatise, 
he would not have failed to notice it in his account 
of the Work, and would have dwelt upon the events 
there recorded, in his controversies with the Roman 
See. 

4. Once more: We have seen that the Author 
of our Treatise claims the Work, “ Ox the Universe,” 
as his own.’ But Photius (as we have also seen)? 


of before us.” And again, p. 26: ‘‘ Photius evidently found these 
Judaic sects, as we do, at the head of his Treatise, but expresses himself 
inaccurately.” 

This is doubtful; and again: ‘‘ Zvstead of calling them Ophites 
(says M. Bunsen), Photius designates them as Dositheans.” Again, 
p- 26: ‘*The last of the heresies treated by Hippolytus, in the 
work read by Photius, was that of the /Voetians ; and so in fact z¢ zs 272 
our book.” Again, pp. 120, 121: ‘Looking back to the points I 
undertook to prove, I believe I have established them pretty satisfactorily.” 
** Our work begins in fact, as Photius says, so too does it end,”’ 

P. 334, ed. Miller. Above, chapter iii. 2 Above, chapter iii. 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 49 


did not know who wrote that Work on the Uni- 
verse. He says that it has been ascribed to Justin 
Martyr, Caius, and others ;—but has no suspicion 
that it was written by Hippolytus. Hence, again, it is 
clear, that our Treatise is not the Little Book on Heresy 
by Hippolytus, which Photius saw and describes. 

5. Here, let us candidly avow, is an embarrass- 
ment. Let us not close our eyes to it. Rather 
let us meet it, in hope, that, if our former conclusion 
was right, this, which is now a difficulty, may become 
anally. St. Hippolytus, it is confessed by all, wrote 
a Treatise on Heresy. Photius read a Work on 
Heresy, written by Hippolytus. Our Treatise is a 
Treatise on Heresy, and is different from the Book 
read by Photius. And it is anonymous. 

Has not, therefore, the Little Book read by Photius 
the fairer claim of the two to be regarded as the Work 
on Heresy written by Hippolytus, and mentioned by 
Eusebius and Jerome and others, and received by the 

world as such ? . 
Again: if we ascend upward from the times of 
Photius to an earlier period, we find additional  evi- 
dence of the existence of a Work on Heresy written 
by Hippolytus——and a Work differing from the 
Treatise before us. 

6. For example: Gelasius,> whom some suppose to 
be the Bishop of Rome so named, at the close 


8. Gelas. ap. Bibl. Patrum Max., Lugd. viii. p. 704, where good 
reasons are assigned for the opinion that these words were not written 
by the Gelasius, who was Bishop of Rome. Fabric. Hippol. p. 225. 


E 


\ 


50 OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


of the fifth century (A.D. 492—496), in his Trea- 
tise “On the two Natures of Christ,” refers to a 
Work by St. Hippolytus on Heresy, and cites a pas- 
sage from it. He introduces his quotation thus:* 
“From Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, of the Me- 
tropolis of the Arabians, in his Memoria Heresium.” 
He then recites (not in the original Greek, but in 
Latin) an extract ; a very beautiful passage, in which 
Hippolytus collects from Holy Scripture some of the 
proofs, displayed by our Blessed Lord upon earth, of 
His Humanity, and also of His Divinity. 

The passage cited by-Gelasius does not appear in 
our Treatise.. | 

The fact seems to be, as to the title Here given to 
Hippolytus, “ Bishop ofthe Metropolis of Arabia,” i.e. 
of Bosra (Bingham, ix: ch. i. and Carolus a S; Paulo, 
Geograpliia Sacra, p. 295, ed. 1703) that:this error in 
the designation of Hippolytus, as has been suggested 
by Cotelerius (Mon. Eccl. Gr. ii. 639), was derived from 
the erroneous Latin version; by Ruffinus, ofia passage 
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, where speak- 
ing of the learned ecclesiastical writers flourishing at 
a particular period, he says: “ Of these, Beryllus left 
Epistles, and various choice extracts from other 
writings. He was Bishop of the Arabians in Bosra. 
And likewise Hippolytus;—who was president of 
some other Church.” ἢ 


4 Hippolyti, Episcopi et Martyris, Arabum Metropolis, in Memoria 
Heeresium. 

5 Ἐπίσκοπος δ᾽ οὗτος ἣν τῶν κατὰ βόστραν ᾿Αράβων, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ 
Ἱππόλυτος, ἑτέρας που καὶ αὐτὸς προεστὼς ἐκκλησίας, which is thus 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 51 


But whether this extract was really made by 
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, or no, (which is not of 
much moment to the question before us,) we must 
now revert to the fact, that we look in vain for the 
passage, in our Treatise on Heresy. 

On the other hand, it may be remarked, that this 
same passage exists in the original Greek, not in the 
“Treatise of Hippolytus against Noetus,” as has been 
affirmed,® but in his Exposition of the Second Psalm, 
and is so cited by Theodoret.’ 

We may offer one more remark on this quotation, 
by Gelasius, before we close this Chapter; but in the 
mean time perhaps it may be affirmed that not much 
can be inferred from the words of Gelasius, either for 
or against the genuineness of our Treatise. 

7. Weascend to an earlier period than Gelasius, and 
enter the fourth century. 

A Bishop of Alexandria, Peter, who lived early in 
that century, refers to St. Hippolytus, whom he calls 
“a witness of Godliness,” (probably alluding to his 
Martyrdom,) and Bishop of Portus, near Rome.* He 


rendered by Ruffinus, ‘‘ Erat inter czeteros et Beryllus scriptor przecipuus, 
qui et ipse diversa opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus hic fuit apud 
Bostram Arabie urbem maximam, erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et 
ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit Episcopus.” The Latin words of © 
Gelasius, ‘‘ Episcopus Arabum Metropolis,” seem to be derived from 
this inaccurate version by Ruffinus, 

6 M. Bunsen says, i. p. 206, ‘‘ The passage (quoted by Gelasius) 
exists in the special Treatise against Noetus.” A passage /7ke it is found 
in that Homily, chap. xviii. vol. ii. p. 19, ed. Fabric., and bears marks 
of being from the same author. 

7 Theodoret, Dial. ἀσύγχυτος. Vol. iv. Parsi. p. 132, Hale, 1772. 

3. Chronicon Paschale sive Alexandrinum, p. 4, ed. Dindorf, 1832, 
and p. 12. It appears to me that (notwithstanding what is said by Dr. 


E 2 


52 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


then proceeds to adduce a citation from a Work® of 
“ St. Hippolytus, against all Heresies.” The quotation 
refers to the error of the Quartodecimans (that 
is, of those who kept Easter as the Jews did the 
Passover, on the xivth day of the Moon), and Peter 
states that he quotes verbally’ from that Work of 
Hippolytus. 

Let us now refer to our own Treatise. We there 
find that the Author speaks of the Quartodecimans,’ 
and that what he there says, bears some resemblance 
to the quotation of the Alexandrine Bishop, but is not 
identical with it*. 

Hence then it is manifest, first, that the Bishop of 


Déllinger to the contrary) Baron Bunsen had good grounds for ascribing 
this extract to S. Peter of Alexandria himself; Dindorf’s edition seems 
to show this. See S. Hippol. Fabric. i. p. 224; cf. ibid. p. 43. 

9 σύνταγμα. 1 ἐπὶ λέξεως. *-P..294;.85, 

3 The reader may compare the two passages :— 


Quotation from Hippolytus against 
Heresy in Paschal Chronicle, 
p- 6. 
ὁρῶ μὲν (read δρῶμεν) ὅτι φι- 

λονεικίας τὸ ἔργον. λέγει γὰρ 

οὕτως, “ἐποίησεν τὸ πάσχα ὃ 

χριστὸς τότε, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ (ff ?) 

ἔπαθεν, διὸ δεῖ κἀμὲ δεῖ ὃν τρόπον 

ὃ Κύριος ἐποίησεν, οὕτως ποιεῖν. 

πεπλάνηται δὲ, μὴ γιγνώσκων ὅτι 

τῷ καιρῷ (ᾧ ἢ ἔπασχεν * 6 χριστὸς 
οὐκ ἔφαγεν τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα. 

Οὗτος (Αὐτός ?) γὰρ ἦν τὸ πάσχα 

τὸ προκεκηρυγμένον, καὶ τε- 

λειούμενον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 


Philosophumena, or Refutation of 
LTeresies, pp. 274-5. 


ἕτεροί tives φιλόνεικοι τὴν 
φύσιν. συνιστάνουσι δεῖν τὸ 
πάσχα τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ 
μηνὸς φυλάσσειν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ 
νὅμον διαταγὴν ἐν ἣ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ 
ἐμπέσῃ. . οὗ προσέχοντες ὅ τι 
Ιουδαίοις ἐνομοθετεῖτο, τοῖς μέλ- 
λουσι τὸ ἀληθινὸν πάσχα ἄναι- 
ρεῖν (Christum) τὸ εἰς ἔθνη χωρῆ- 
σαν, καὶ πίστει νοούμενον οὐ γράμ- 
ματι νῦν τηρούμενον. 





* Cf. S. Hippol. (fragm. lib. i. de Paschate) ibid. p. 6. 
οὐκ ἔφαγε, ἀλλ᾽ ἔπαθε (sc. xpiords). 


τὸ Πάσχα 
Fabr. Hippol. p. 43. 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 53 


Alexandria had some work of Hippolytus on Heresy 
in his possession; and, secondly, that our Treatise 
was not that work. 

To these considerations must be added another ; 
namely, that the work to which these Authors refer,— 
namely, Photius, the so-called Gelasius, and Peter of 
Alexandria,—as written by Hippolytus, appears to 
have borne his name; and to have been generally 
received as his. But our Treatise has not any name 
prefixed to it. 


8. If then the alternative lay between the Book 
seen and quoted by Photius and others on the one 
side, and our Treatise on the other, it would seem re- 
quisite to ask for more time to consider, before we 
ventured to arbitrate between the two, and to reject 
the former work, and to receive the latter, as the 
Treatise against Heresy written by Hippolytus, and 
recognized by Antiquity as such. 

g. But let us now pass on to observe, that this is 
not the case. 

It may be allowed to be probable, that St. 
Hippolytus wrote two works against Heresy. 

It is not uncommon for Authors to write a brief 
Essay on a subject, and then, subsequently, to expand 
it into a larger Treatise. 

Cicero amplified, in his De Oratore, what he had 
before treated in his earlier works on Rhetoric.* St. 


4 De Oratore 1, 2. Vis enim, ut mihi spe dixisti, quoniam que 
pueris aut adolescentulis nobis ex commentariolis nostris zzchoata et 


54 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is an expansion of that 
to the Galatians. Tertullian goes over some of the 
same ground in his “ad Nationes” that he had pre-. 
viously traversed in his “ Apologeticus.” Origen com- 
posed three different editions of Scriptural Exposi- 
tions.” St. Augustine composed twelve books, “ de 
Genesi ad literam,” as a development of what he had 
before previously written in one book.*® 

Let us remember, also, the nature of the subject ; » 
Heresy. Heresy is not stationary; but is ever receiv- 
ing new accessions, and showing itself in new forms. 
New refutations are requisite, as new errors arise. It 
is, therefore, not unlikely, that, if new heresies had 
arisen in his later years, and if the old ones were not 
extinct, Hippolytus would have written in continuation 
and expansion of what he had formerly published 
concerning Heresy. 

10. In the present case, however, we need not rest 
on probabilities. We have good reason for believing, 
that St. Hippolytus wrote zwo Treatises against 
Heresy: first, a Compendium; then, afterwards, a 
longer Treatise. In speaking thus, we have the 
authority of St. Hippolytus himself.’ 


rudia exciderunt vix hac zetate digna, aliquid zsdem de rebus politius a 
nobis perfectiusque proferri. 

5 Sedulius, in preefat. operis Paschal., ‘‘ Cognoscant Origenem ¢ridus 
editionibus prope cuncta que disseruit aptavisse.”” See Vales. in Euseb. 
vi. 38. 

6 S. Aug. Retractationes, i. 18. 

7 We are indebted to the learned Author of the Papers in the 
Ecclesiastic, Nos, LX VI., LX VII., LXXXIV., for the first suggestion 
of this solution. See No. LXXXIV. p. 399. The same explanation 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 55 


In the Introduction to the newly-discovered 
Treatise, the Author thus writes :—“ No fable of those 
who are famous among heathens is to be rejected, 
Their incoherent dogmas are rather to be regarded as 
credible, on account of the greater infatuation of 
heretics, who have been supposed by many to worship 
God, because they hide and disguise. their ineffable 
mysteries. Whose dogmas we expounded, some time 
ago, with brevity, not exhibiting them in detail, but 
refuting them rather in rude generality ; not thinking 
tt would be requisite to drag thetr secrets to the light,— 
in order that when we had shown their tenets as 
it were darkly, they being filled with shame lest we 
should speak out their mysteries plainly, and show 
them to be infidels, might in some degree relinquish 
their irrational principles and godless designs. But 
since I perceive that they have no feeling of regard for 
our moderation, and that they do not consider that 
God, Who is blasphemed by them, is long-suffering, 
in order that either through compunction they may 
repent, or if obstinate they may be justly punished, 
7 am constrained to come forward, and to disclose their 
secret mysteries which they deliver with great con- 


has been also given by Duncker, as mentioned by Jacobi, de Basilidis 
Sententiis, Berlin, 1852. Let me add as a conjecture, that as the 
smaller and earlier work of Hippolytus, his βιβλιδάριον against Heresy 
was due to the oral discourses or Lectures of his master Irenzeus, so 
the idea of this later and larger Treatise was suggested by the Work of 
Irenzeus against Heresy, which we now possess, and that the “ bibli- 
darion’’ bore very much the same relation to the Lectures, that the 
‘«Philosophumena ” does to the *EAeyxos of Irenzeus. 
8 πάλαι. 


56 OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


fidence to those who are initiated by them. And 
though the subject compels us to launch forth on a 
wide sea of demonstration, I do not deem it fit to be 
silent, but w7ll exhibit in detail the dogmas of them all. 
And though our argument will be long, yet it seems 
right not to flag. For we shall bequeathe to posterity 
a no slight boon, so that they may no longer be 
deceived, when all behold manifestly the secret orgies 
of heretics, which they deliver only to their 
neophytes.” 

11. Let us remember, also, that, as we learn from 
Photius, the biblidarion of Hippolytus terminat gt 
with Noetus and the Noetians. 

Now it appears from our Treatise, that after 
Noetus, another Heresy broke forth, derived in part 
from that of Noetus,—namely, the CALLISTIAN 
Heresy ; and that it made great havock in the Roman 
Church, and that our Author had the principal share 
in checking its progress. Accordingly, in the Ninth 
Book, he begins as it were afresh, and devotes a great 
part of that Book to the Callistian Heresy, and to 
another still later heresy, which he describes as owing 
its progress at Rome to the Callistian, viz.—the 
Heresy of the Elchasaites. 

We see, then, that our Author had written an 
earlier work on Heresy; and, in the history of the 
Callistian and Elchasaite Heresies subsequent to the 
Noetian, we perceive another very good reason why 
he should have written a Second Treatise on Heresy, 
if the former Work which he had written had ended 
with Noetus. 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 57 


12. Thus, then, we find it stated by our Author in 
the newly-discovered Treatise,— 

1. That he had already, some time since (πάλαι), 
written a book against Heresy ; 

2. That the former Work was a compendious one ; 
and 

3. He adduces some reasons for writing another 
Treatise more in detail. 

13. We are, therefore, now led to inquire, whether 
we can find an earlier and shorter Work on Heresy 
which we may assign to our Author. 

Now, supposing our Author to be St. Hippolytus, 
—(which we have good reason to do, from our 
Author’s age and position in the Western Church, 
and from his authorship of a “ Work on the Universe,” 
quoted in this Treatise as written by our Author, 
and known from the list on the Statue to be written 
by Hzppolytus)—we find that a shorter work on 
Heresy is ascribed to him, corresponding in character 
to that of which we are now in search. 

Such a Work, we say, was written by Hippolytus ;° 
it was inscribed with his name, and was read by 
Photius. It was a skort Work—for it is called 
biblidarion. It was probably not in several successive 
Books, like our Treatise, but contained in a sznugle 
Book, \ike* that annexed to the Prescriptiones of 

9 It may be observed here, that Trithemius de Script. Eccles., No. 
XXXVI., A.D. 1494, in his catalogue of the works of Hippolytus, 
enumerates, ‘‘ Contra Omnes Heereses, lib. iii.” 


1 Which, in a MS. of Semler, is entitled “ Adversus omnes 
Heereses.”’ 


58 OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.— 


Tertullian. And it is not unlikely that the Heresies 
were zumbered in it consecutively, and that each was 
despatched in a few paragraphs respectively, as is the 
case in the work on Heresy by Philastrius.’ (circ. 
A.D. 350). Otherwise, we can -hardly see why 
Photius should call it “A Little Book against ¢hzrty- 
two heresies.” For would he have taken the pains to 
count them? Would he have described it as such? 
It seems also to have been written a considerable 
time defore our work, for it was not formed from the 
Work of Irenzus against Heresy, but from his 
lectures, and was published as a compendium of them. 
The work of Irenzus was finished about A.D. 190, 
and he died about A.D. 202; whereas our Author 
refers to facts that did not take place till about 
A.D. 220. It also ended with the Noetians, and does 
not appear to have said anything of the Callistians, 
and certainly did not go on (as ours does) to describe 
the Heresy of Elchasai. 

14. Hence, therefore, the description by Photius of 
another work on Heresy by Hippolytus, different from 
our Treatise, so far from invalidating the evidence 
already adduced to show that our Treatise was 
written by Hippolytus, comes in as an additional 
proof that the newly-discovered Treatise is from him. 

Our Author wrote ¢wo works on Heresy. The 
present Work is described by him as the later and 
longer of the two. If then our Author is Hippolytus, 
we may expect to find another earlier and shorter 

3 Bibl. Pat. Max. v. p. 701. 


PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. : 59 


work than the present written by Hippolytus. We 
do find such a work. Therefore a new argument 
thence arises that our Author is Hippolytus. 

15. Here, also, the other difficulties vanish which 
were noticed in this chapter. } 

Gelasius—or whoever is the Author of the Treatise 
above mentioned as bearing his name—certainly did 
not quote from our Treatise: we have seen good 
reason for thinking that he did not quote from a 
Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus, but from another 
work of his. It may be, however, that the passage 
he cites was in the shorter Treatise seen by Photius, 
as well as in the Exposition of the Psalms by Hip- 
polytus. And the term by which he describes the 
work from which he quotes, viz., “Memoria Here- 
sium,” would be very applicable to a brief Notice of 
Heresies, such as that which Photius describes. 

The same may be said of the passage cited in the 
Paschal Chronicle. It proves that there was a work 
on Heresy by Hippolytus, azfferent from ours. Its 
extract is from that work. It azffers from what is 
_ said on the Quartodecimans in our Treatise, and yet 
in some degree vesemd/es it in argument and language. 
It looks as if it came from the same pen as that which 
wrote our Treatise, though it is itself not the same as 
what is written there on the same subject. The 
Author of our Treatise had written another Treatise 
on Heresy. Therefore this quotation comes in also 
as an additional proof that our Treatise was written 
by Hippolytus. 


60 OBFECTIONS CONSIDERED.—PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 


We may find perhaps, hereafter, that the “ Little 
Book” of Hippolytus, seen and described by Photius, 
may prove of still more service to us yet. 

16. Lastly, whoever will compare the remarkable 
parallelisms between passages in the newly-discovered 
Treatise, or even in the portion of it printed in the 
present volume, and passages in the acknowledged 
works of Hippolytus (some of which are quoted in 
the notes to the portion published in the present 
work), he will feel strongly confirmed in the opinion 
that the newly-discovered Treatise is by him. 


Let us now proceed a step further and listen to his 
own words, in the Ninth Book, describing the condi- 
tion of the Church of Rome in his own time. 


τ 


βδς ; 
- ἄμ.» : ae 
eae ss 
PS 


oa Ne ἡ 
cee Yaa 


; 
ha 
a Ξ 





eSrecumens of thy 
Laris M.S. of the Fehutation of all Leresiix, 
PGEOMOLHTSE 


Tou Sd No kheidonrs cyte rer Fuente 
“6 Or: Santry | ices | Kay aH. 

~Tac lo mpore ΜΑ͂Σ BODY poder 

--"* ar "Col de aumgcon ἐζσίν΄ bot wact 7998 ~ 
pS Kay Shee Jan fearon 


Cw Ὥρα rake dyes At φέων ane 
puoi poe ῷ ga Dee oT x8 


Pye Wd reds: 


τὸ Καϊδ Gy xo αὐσζηϑτο ας Fone 3 Κῶ TO 

SaSyity ΘΎ πλνηράοον τ Sosy pou snd 

σοὶ σῷ ἕη καὶ χα Tee Tor’ ἐὺ be 
PARR os Ἢ 


[ Zo face 2. 61. 


CHAPTER VI. 


The Author's Narrative concerning the Church of 
Rome in his own time—Extracts from the Ninth 
and Tenth Books of his work on all Herestes. 


*,* PRELIMINARY NOTE.— 776 Paging on the left hand Margin of 
the Greek Text and on the right hand of my English translation refers to 
17. Millers Edition of the**Philosophumena, or Refutation of all Heresies.” 
Any variations from his Text that may appear to me to be requisite, are 
specified in the notes beneath the Text, but none have been introduced by me 
into the Text itself. 

The figures prefixed to my notes refer to the Lines of the Greek Text. 

The readings of the Paris Manuscript, when not followed in the Text, 
are indicated in the collation immediately under the Greek Text. 

I collated this portion of the Manuscript at Paris in the autumn of 
1853, in the ““ Bibliothique Impériale,” formerly Bibliotheque du Roi 
(now I suppose Bibliotheque Nationale), Rue Richelieu. The MS., which 
had been lately bound, and was lettered ‘‘ Histoire des Hérésies,” is indi- 
cated in the Catalogue as No. 464 in the Supplement. It ts on paper, and 
Με of complicated contractions, especially in the latter books. The Ninth 
Book begins on the reverse of p. 109 of the Manuscript without any break, 
and is in the same hand as the rest. 


TOT KATA ΠΑΣΩΝ ΑἹΡΕΣΕΩΝ ἘΛΕΓΧΟΥ͂ 


ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ Θ΄. 





P. 278 TAAE ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ ἐννάτῃ τοῦ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων 
τς BAS 
Miller. ἔγχόν. 
Τίς ἡ Νοητοῦ βλάσφημος ἀφροσύνη, καὶ ὅτι δόγμασιν 
ς / nm “Ὁ a > “ rn 
Ηρακλείτου τοῦ Σκοτεινοῦ προσέσχεν, ov τοῖς Χριστοῦ. 
ς Καὶ πῶς Κάλλιστος μίξας τὴν Κλεομένους μαθητοῦ 
Νοητοῦ καὶ Θεοδότου αἵρεσιν, ἑτέραν καινοτέραν αἵρεσιν 
συνέστησε, καὶ τίς ὁ τούτου βίος. 
Tis ἡ κενὴ ἐπιδημία τοῦ ξένου δαίμονος ᾿Ηλχασαὶ καὶ 
7 UA Lal 50." / \ lal δ ¢ 
ὅτι σκέπη τῶν ἰδίων σφαλμάτων τὸ δοκεῖν προσέχειν 
a x n 
το νόμῳ TO δέοντι γνωστικοῖς δόγμασιν ἢ Kai ἀστρολογικοῖς 
καὶ μαγείαις πρόσκειται. 
Τίνα τὰ ᾿Ἰουδαίοις ἔθη, καὶ πόσαι τούτων διαφοραί. 


2. Cod. ἐλλέγχου. 11. Cod. parylats. 





1. Similia preemisit Sanctus Irenzeus, Lugdunensis Episcopus, Sancti 
Hippolyti magister, Libris suis adversus Hzereses. Vide ante Libros 
IV. et V. ad quorum exemplar sua composuisse videtur noster. 

4. Tod Σκοτεινοῦ. De hoc Heracliti, Philosophi Ephesii, epitheto, 
propter scriptorum obscuritatem indito, vide, si placet, Clem. Alex. 
Potter, ii. 676, not. Non illibenter recordabere graves Lucretii versus, 
i. 629: 

“« Quapropter qui materiem rerum esse putarunt 
Ignem, atque ex igni summam consistere solo, 
Magnopere a vera lapsi ratione videntur. 
HERACLITUS init quorum dux prcelia primus, 
Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inter inanes, 
Quamde graveis inter Graios qui vera requirunt. 
Omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur amantque, 
Inversis que sub verbis latitantia cernunt, 
Veraque constituunt, quze belle tangere possunt 
Aureis, et lepido quee sunt fucata sonore.” 


BOOK THE NINTH OF THE REFUTATION 
OF ALL HERESIES. 





THE following are the contents of the NINTH ΒΟΟΚ ΒΡ. ae 
ed. 


of the REFUTATION of ALL HERESIES. 

What was the impious infatuation of NOETUS, and 
that he clave to the doctrines of Heraclitus the 
Obscure, and not to those of Christ. ' 

How CALLISTUS blended the Heresy οἵ Cleomenes, 
the disciple of Noetus, with that of Theodotus, and 
constituted another stranger Heresy ; and what was 
his manner of life. 

What was the strange sojourn at Rome of the 
portentous spirit of Elchasai ; and how a semblance 
of reverence for the law (of Moses) was made by him 
a cloke for his errors; whereas, in fact, he attaches 
himself to Gnostic or even to Astrological Theories, 
and to Magic. | 

What are the customs of the Jews, and how many 
their differences. 





6. S. Hippol. c. Noét. § 3. Θεόδοτος τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον συνιστᾶν 
ψιλὸν βουλόμενος. 

8. κενὴ. Ita MS. Sed legendum καινὴ quivis viderit. 

9. τὸ δοκεῖν προσέχειν νόμῳ τῷ δεόντι γνωστικοῖς Soyudow... 
πρόσκειται. Ita ex codice MS. unico Millerus. Sed interpungendum 
post νόμῳ (imd, ut nunc ex inspectione Codicis ipse intellexi, ita in 
Codice interpungitur), deinde legendum, vocibus disjunctis, TQ: AE 
ONTI γνωστικοῖς δ. 7. Sensus est ‘* Simulat se Legi Mosaice inheerere, 
sed de facto, τῷ δὲ ὄντι, gnosticis deliriis se mancipavit ;” vide inf. 
Pp. 293. 


Miller. 


64 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


Πολλοῦ τοίνυν τοῦ περὶ πασῶν αἱρέσεων γενομένου 
ec A > a , > bs a 
ἡμῖν ἀγῶνος, μηθέν te ἀνεξέλεγκτον καταλιυποῦσι, 
“ a ς / > \ > , \ 
I5 περιλείπεται νῦν ὁ μέγιστος ἀγὼν, ἐκδιηγήσασθαι καὶ 
P. 279 διελέγξαι τὰς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐπαναστάσας αἱρέσεις, δι’ ὧν τινὲς 
» lad \ \ / 3 4 Ἁ . 
ἀμαθεῖς καὶ τολμηροὶ διασκεδαννύειν ἐπεχείρησαν τὴν 
> , 
Εἰκκλησίαν, μέγιστον τάραχον κατὰ πάντα TOV κόσμον 
b] lal A a 3 ΄ a \ - αὐ ἢ \ 
ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐμβάλλοντες. Δοκεῖ yap ἐπὶ τὴν 
3 Ν “ lal 
5 ἀρχηγὸν τῶν κακῶν γενομένην γνώμην ὁρμήσαντας 
/ / ᾿ 
διελέγξαι τίνες αἱ ταύτης ἀρχαὶ, ὅπως εὔγνωστοι αἱ 
> 4 > an “ / an 
ἐκφυάδες αὐτῆς ἅπασι γενόμεναι καταφρονηθῶσι. 
, / 9 \ a ΄ a 
Teyévntai τις ὀνόματι Nontos, τῷ γένει Σμυρναῖος. 
e a 
Οὗτος εἰσηγήσατο αἵρεσιν ἐκ τῶν Ἡρακλείτου δογμάτων, 
Φ / \ \ / ? / 4 "7 
10 οὗ διάκονος καὶ μαθητὴς γίνεται Emiyovos τις τοὔνομα, 
ἃ a ¢ av 3 , 3 / \ ΝΜ 4 
ὃς τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπιδημήσας ἐπέσπειρε τὴν ἄθεον γνώμην. 
: ΄ ῇ \ , \ U4 b) ΄ 
Ou μαθητεύσας Κλεομένης καὶ βίῳ καὶ τρόπῳ ἀλλότριος 
a ᾽ / 3 4 \ / a eh | a a 
τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας, ἐκράτυνε τὸ δόγμα, κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ 
Ζεφυρίνου διέπειν νομίζοντος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀνδρὸς 


13. In cod. titulus : Φιλοσοφουμένων ἔννατον. Noytos. 13. Cod. 

ο 

πολλυὶ τοίνυν. 2. Cod. διασκεδανοίην. 4. Cod. πᾶσις 
πιστοῖς. 11. Cod. τῇ Ῥώμην. 





8. Vide inf. p. 329. Hippol. c. Noét. § 1, ed. Fabr. ii. 5. Νοήτου 
ds Td μὲν γένος ἦν Suvpvaios οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου γενόμενος. Ephesium 
vocat Epiphanius, Heeres. lvii. Vide et Joann. Damascen. de Heeres. 
c. 57. Ceeterum in tono vocis fluctuant Codices, aliis Noyrds, aliis 
Νόητος exhibentibus. 

11. τῇ Ῥώμῃ. Ita Millerus. Codex habet τὴν Ῥώμην. 

12. Vide Nostrum, lib. x. p. 329. 34. Νοητὸς εἰσηγήσατο τοιάνδε 
αἵρεσιν ἐξ Ἐπιγόνου τινὸς εἰς Κλεομένην χωρήσασαν, unde sua hausisse 
videtur Theodoretus, iii. 3. Νοητὸς ἀνενεώσατο τὴν αἵρεσιν, ἣν Ἐπί- 
Ὕονος ἀπεκύησε πρῶτος, Κλεομένης δὲ παραλαβὼν ἐβεβαίωσε. Hine, 
opinor, suspicari licet Theodoretum libro decimo, compendiario illo, 
usum esse, non autem Nostri opus integrum prez manibus habu- 
isse, idque ei in hoc loco fraudi fuisse. Vide infra Append. ii. 


REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 65 


Now that we have performed a laborious work with 
regard to all (former) heresies, and have left none un- 
refuted ; there remains now the hardest task of all; to 
give a complete description and refutation of those P. 279 
Heresies which have arisen in our own age, by means 
of which some unlearned and bold men have under- 
taken to distract the Church, and have produced very 
great confusion throughout the world among all the 
faithful. For it appears requisite to revert to the 
dogma which was the primary source of the evil, 
and to expose its origin, so that its offshoots may be 
manifest to all, and may be contemned. 

There was a certain NOETUS, of Smyrna. He in- 
troduced a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus. One 
Epigonus was his agent and scholar, who, coming to 
sojourn at Rome, disseminated his impious doctrine. 
Cleomenes having become his disciple, an alien from 
the Church in life and disposition, fortified that 
doctrine, at the time when ZEPHYRINUS presumed to 
govern the Church, an illiterate and covetous man, 





14. Vide apud Euseb. v. 28; vi. 21. De Zephyrino, Romane 
Ecclesive Episcopo, heec habet liber Pontificalis Damaso ascriptus ap. 
Labbe, Concil. i. p. 602. ‘*Zephyrinus natione Romanus ex patre 
Abundantio sedit annos viii (xviii?), menses vii, dies x. Fuit autem 
temporibus Antonini et Severi a consulatu Saturnini et Gallicani, usque 
ad Preesentem et Strigatum consules. Hic fecit ordinationes iv per 
mens. Decemb. Presbyteros 13, Diaconos 7, Episcopos per loca 13. 
Qui sepultus est in ceemeterio suo, non longé a ccemeterio Callisti, via 
Appia.” Dissonantia inter se tradunt auctores de annis Zephyrini, 
aliis ab A.D. 198, aliis ab A.D. 201 Pontificatum ejus ordientibus; quidam- 
in A.D. 214 exitum figunt, nonnulli ad A.D. 219 continuant. Vide 
Clintoni Fastos ad A.D. 210. Ab A.D. 202 ad A.D. 218 (quo ei in 


F 


15 


66 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


ἰδιώτο \ 4 ὃ 46 ἃ “Ὁ / ὃ / 

υ καὶ αἰσχροκερδοῦς" [ὃς] τῷ κέρδει προσφερομένῳ 

πειθόμενος, συνεχώρει τοῖς προσιοῦσι τῷ Κλεομένει 
͵7ὕ \ > Ν ς A la 2 \ 

μαθητεύεσθαι, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑποσυρόμενος τῷ χρόνῳ ἐπὶ τὰ 

αὐτὰ ὥρμητο, συμβούλου καὶ συναγωνιστοῦ τῶν κακῶν 

ὄντος αὐτῷ Καλλίστου, οὗ τὸν βίον καὶ τὴν ἐφευρεθεῖσαν 


/ 
20 αἵρεσιν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ ἐκθήσομαι. 


25 


P. 280 


uw 


, a 
Τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν διέμεινε τὸ διδασκαλεῖον 
\ rc a 
κρατυνόμενον καὶ ἐπαῦξον, διὰ TO συναιρεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς 
\ a > 
tov Ζεφυρῖνον καὶ τὸν Κάλλιστον, καίτοι ἡμῶν μηδέποτε 
συγχωρησάντων, ἀλλὰ πλειστάκις ἀντικαθεστώτων πρὸς 
> \ \ ΄ \ v / \ 
αὐτοὺς, καὶ διελεγξάντων, καὶ ἄκοντας βιασαμένων τὴν 
3 ΄ πὶ ᾿ς 'ν δὰ mY \ \ σ΄ ° , \ 
ἀλήθειαν ὁμολογεῖν" of πρὸς μὲν ὥραν αἰδούμενοι, καὶ 
¢ \ an > / , e , Ὗ > \ 
ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας συναγόμενοι, ὡμολόγουν, WET οὐ TOAD 
ie, 'Ἃ, \ 3: Ἂν > / 
δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο. 
> n a a) 
"AAN ἐπεὶ τῆς γενεαλογίας αὐτῶν τὴν διαδοχὴν 
3 / “ Ἁ \ “Ὁ / Ἂν, 
ἐπεδείξαμεν, δοκεῖ λοιπὸν καὶ τῶν δογμάτων τὴν κακο- 
διδασκαλίαν ἐκθέσθαι, πρότερον τὰ ᾿Ἡρακλείτῳ τῷ 
‘ , 
Σκοτεινῷ δόξαντα παραθεμένους, ἔπειτα καὶ τὰ τούτων 
, ς ͵ ” ᾿ ἃ , ς a 
μέρη Ἡρακλείτεια ὄντα φανερῶσαι, ἃ τυχόντες οἱ νῦν 
“Ὁ e fal a 
προστάται τῆς αἱρέσεως οὐκ ἴσασιν ὄντα τοῦ Σκοτεινοῦ, 


15. Addidit ὃς Millerus. 16. Cod. Κλεομένῃ, cum iota sub- 
scripto. 18. Cod. συμβόλου. Imd, ut ipse vidi, Cod. 
habet συμβόλου. 24. Cod. ἀντικαθεστότων. 25. Cod. 
διελλεγξάντων. 4. (οά. ἐπεὶ καὶ τά. 6. Cod. εἴσασιν. 





Episcopatu successit Callistus) sedisse statuit Jaffé, Regest. Pontif. p. 5, 
ed. 1851. 

ib. Zepuplvov νομίζοντος διέπειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. De hac loquendi 
formula vide, si lubet, quee infra monebimus cap. vii. 

18. ὥρμητο. Sic MS.; sed legendum videtur ὡρμᾶτο. 

22. συναιρεῖσθαι. Ita ex Codice Millerus. Sed reposuerim συναίρεσθαι ; 
vide Philosophumena, inf. 288, 89. συναράμενον, et p. 143, 77. λέγουσι 
Μωσέα αὐτῶν συναίρεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ. 


ZEPHYVRINUS BISHOP OF ROME. 67 


who, being allured by offers of lucre, conceded to 
those, who resorted to Cleomenes, to become disciples; 
and at length, being inveigled himself, he ran into the 
same errors, having, as his adviser and coadjutor in 
evil, CALLISTUS, whose life and the heresy invented by 
him I will soon relate. 

During their succession this school subsisted, being 
strengthened and aggrandized, because Zephyrinus 
and Callistus co-operated with them, although we 
never gave place, but very often resisted them, and 
confuted them, and compelled them reluctantly to 
own the truth ; which they did through shame for a 
time, and being constrained by the force of truth; 
but soon afterwards they returned to wallow in the 
same mire. 

But since we have indicated the succession of their P. 280. 
lineage, it seems requisite now to expose the pravity 
of their doctrines. (This we will do) first by setting 
down the opinions of HERACLITUS the Obscure, next 
by displaying those portions of their system that are 
derived from him, which they who now promote this 
heresy have espoused, being not aware that those 
tenets are borrowed from Heraclitus; but they imagine 





23. Heec et quee sequuntur colorem orationis traxisse videntur ex 
Apostoli historia suam ipsius cum B. Petro concertationem enarrantis, 
ad Galat. ii. 5—13. 

28. ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο ex B. Petr. 2. ii. 22, ὗς 
λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου : (secundam igitur S. Petri Epistolam 
agnovisse videtur noster :) quze quidem Sancti Apostoli verba ex Greeco 
Senario Proverbiali videntur efficta, quem sic se olim habuisse conjecerim, 

eis ἴδιον ἐξέραμ᾽ ἐπιστρέψας κύων, 
λελουμένη θ᾽ ὗς εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου. 


F 2 


68 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


9 - a ? 
νομίζοντες εἶναι Χριστοῦ. Οἷς εἰ ἐνέτυχον, κἂν οὕτω 
δυσωπηθέντες παύσονται τῆς ἀθέου δυσφημίας. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ 
\ / » δυνν ἃ “ > a / 
καὶ πρότερον ἔκκειται Up ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς Φιλοσοφουμένοις 
10 ἡ δόξα “Ἡρακλείτου, ἀλλά γε δοκεῖ προσαναπαραχθῆναι 
\ lal “ \ na > / / lal 
καὶ νῦν, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ ἐγγίονος ἐλέγχου φανερῶς 
ὃ ὃ Aa ς ΄, / an 4 \ 
ιδαχθῶσιν οἱ τούτου νομίζοντες Χριστοῦ εἶναι μαθητὰς, 
οὐκ ὄντας, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Σκοτεινοῦ. 
P. 283 @avepov δὲ πᾶσι τοὺς νοητοὺς Νοητοῦ διαδόχους καὶ 
“A ae ° > X. Ἐ / / 
τῆς αἱρέσεως προστάτας, εἰ καὶ Ἡρακλείτου λέγοισαν 
«ς \ \ ’ > \ > / \ n a 
ἑαυτοὺς μὴ γεγονέναι ἀκροατὰς, ἀλλά γε [τὰ] τῷ Νοητῷ 
U Φ 7 3 \ fal ς “Ὁ / 
δόξαντα αἱρουμένους ἀναφανδὸν, ταῦτα ὁμολογεῖν. Aé- 
5 γουσι γὰρ οὕτως ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν εἶναι πάντων 
δημιουργὸν καὶ πατέρα, εὐδοκήσαντα δὲ πεφηνέναι τοῖς 
by a ” 27 ¢/ \ \ > 
ἀρχῆθεν δικαίοις ὄντα ἀόρατον. “Ore μὲν yap οὐχ 
ὁρᾶται ἣν ἀόρατος, ἀχώρητος δὲ ὅτε μὴ χωρεῖσθαι θέλει, 
P. 284 χωρητὸς δὲ ὅτε χωρεῖται. Οὕτως κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον 
ἀκράτητος, ἀγένητος, ἀθάνατος καὶ θνητός. Πῶς οὐχ 


9. Cod. φιλοσοφουμένους. Cf. lib. i. cap. 4. Sic Miller. Imd Codex 


habet (ut ipse vidi) φιλοσοφομένοι5. 10. Cod. πρὸς ἀνπαραχθῆναι. 
11. Cod. ἀγγίονος ἐλλέγχου. 2. “Scrib. vel AeAovow vel 
λέγοιεν." Miller. 3. **Add. τά. Vel τῷ in τὰ mutandum.” 
Miller. 6. Cod. πεφηκέναι. 2. In Cod. ἀκράτητος bis scriptum. 





7. Pro κἂν οὕτω παύσονται legendum videtur παύσαιντο τι, vide 
Pref. p. 2. ὅπως αἰσχυνθέντες παύσωνταί τι τῆς ἄλογίστου γνώμης. 

10. Lib. i. p. 10, 

14. In priore editione Heraclitea dogmata, a nostro citata, inserueram ; 
sed ut ad historiam Romane Ecclesiz, de qua nunc agitur, parum 
spectantia nunc omisi. 

I. Νοητοὺς Nonrod διαδόχους, idem hic lusus παρονομαστικὸς in voce 
Noéto, qui apud S. Hippol. c. Noét. § 3. ai γραφαὶ ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν ἄλλα 
ἢ καὶ Nénros νοεῖ, οὐκ ἤδη δὲ εἰ Nénros μὴ νοεῖ παρὰ τοῦτο ἔκβλητοι ai 
γραφαί. Vide etiam ibid. § 8. τί πρὸς τοῦτανοήσει ΝόητοΞ μὴ νοῶν τὴν 
ἄλήθειαν; Hinc Callistum, Noétianam impietatem heeresim novis qui- 


DIGRESSION ON HERACLITUS. 69 


them to be from Christ. If, however, they met with 
them (thus displayed), perhaps even by this means 
they might be shamed out of their impious language. 
And although the tenets of Heraclitus have been 
already set forth in our “ Philosophumena,” yet we 
will now also revert to them, in order that by this 
closer examination those persons may be instructed, 
who imagine that these men are disciples of Christ, 
whereas they are scholars not of Him, but of 
Heraclitus. 

It is evident to all, that the knowing successors of 
Noetus, and the chief patrons of his heresy, although 
they may assert that they have never been disciples 
of Heraclitus, yet by adopting the dogmas of Noetus, 
avow the same tenets with Heraclitus. For they speak 
thus, that one and the same God is the Maker and 
Father of all things, and that when it pleased Him, 
He revealed Himself to the righteous from the 
beginning, being invisible. For when He is not seen 
He was invisible, and incomprehensible when He is 
not willing to be comprehended ; but comprehensible 
when He is comprehended. Thus, according to the 
same argument, He is incomprehensible and compre- 
hensible; unborn and born; immortal and mortal. 





busdam additamentis adornantem, Theodoretus tradit ἐπιθήκας τινὰς 
ἐπινοῆσαι τῇ δυσσεβείᾳ Tod δόγματος, Heret. Fab. iii. 3. Lusus etiam 
ad Latinos permeavit, qui Noétianos zmsensatos appellant, vide Philastr. 
Heres. in voce. Νοητοὺς sensatos, hos vocat noster,—amara ironia. 

4. ταῦτα ὁμολογεῖν. Legendum ταὐτὰ pro ταῦτα quivis viderit. 

5. Post οὕτως interpungendum. 

2. Cod. ἀκράτητος, ἀκράτητος, ἀγένητος, ἀθάνατος. Ex tenore 
sententiarum patet esse legendum ἀκράτητος κρατητὸς, ἀγένητος, γενητός. 


P, 283 


P. 284 


70 NOETUS FOLLOWS HERACLITUS. 


« / a 
-Ηρακλείτου οἱ τοιοῦτοι δειχθήσονται μαθηταί; μὴ αὐτῇ 
τῇ λέξει διαφθάσας ἐφιλοσόφησεν ὁ Σκοτεινός ; “Ore δὲ 
ἡ ρα > \ ΩΝ 3 , \ , os » a 
5 καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγει Kal “πατέρα οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ. 
Λέγει δὲ οὕτως" ὅτε μὲν οὖν μὴ γεγένητο ὁ πατὴρ, δικαίως 
Ἁ [4 7 \ > / / e 
πατὴρ προσηγόρευτο. “Ore δὲ ηὐδόκησεν γένεσιν ὗπο- 
A * \ e ey > δ oe" ¢ fa! > , Pe 4 
μεῖναι, γενηθεὶς ὁ υἱὸς ἐγένετο αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, οὐχ ἑτέρου. 
Ὁ A a Ἀ 
Οὕτως γὰρ δοκεῖ μοναρχίαν συνιστᾶν, ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
10 φασκων ὑπάρχειν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν, καλούμενον οὐχ 
3 OD of > ᾽ | me. 3 ς la > , \ / 
ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, ὀνόματι μὲν πατέρα 
\ εν , , x Ψ 3 
καὶ υἱὸν καλούμενον κατὰ χρόνων τροπὴν, ἕνα δὲ εἶναι 
τοῦτον τὸν φανέντα, καὶ γένεσιν ἐκ παρθένου ὑπομείναντα, 
3 » ’ »” > , ey Ν 
καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἄνθρωπον ἀναστραφέντα, υἱὸν μὲν 
ξ Ἀ a cian ς a \ δ. 4 
15 ἑαυτὸν τοῖς ὁρῶσιν ὁμολογοῦντα διὰ τὴν γενομένην 
γένεσιν, πατέρα δὲ εἶναι καὶ τοῖς χωροῦσιν μὴ ἀπο- 
κρύψαντα. Τοῦτον πάθει ξύλου προσπαγέντα καὶ ἑαυτῷ 
τὸ πνεῦμα παραδόντα, ἀποθανόντα καὶ μὴ ἀποθανόντα, 
N Ve Ν iol / ε ’ > / \ > / 
καὶ ἑαυτὸν TH τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστήσαντα, τὸν ἐν μνημείῳ 
20 ταφέντα καὶ λόγχῃ τρωθέντα, καὶ ἥλοις καταπαγέντα, 
τοῦτον τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν καὶ πατέρα εἶναι λέγει 
e 
Κλεομένης καὶ ὁ τούτου χορὸς, Ἡρακλείτειον σκότος 
3 / a 
ἐπεισάγοντες πολλοῖς. 


τὴ τῇ 
4. Cod. μὴδε λέξει. 6. Cod. μὴ γένητο. 14. Cod. ἀναστρεφέντα. 





7. mpoonydpevto, Mallem προσηγορεύετο. 

9. Tertullian. c. Praxeam, 3. ‘‘ Duos et tres Deos jam jactitant a 
nobis preedicari quasi non et Unitas irrationaliter collecta hzeresim faciat, 
et Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. MJonarchiam 
(inquiunt) tenemus.” 

10. πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν, καλούμενον οὐχ ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου. Ita Millerus, 
sed interpunctione mutataé legendum π. «. υἱὸν καλούμενον,----, Vide 
Theodoret. Heer. Fab. iii. 3. τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα πρὸς 
τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. 


NOETUS. 71 


How will not these persons be shown to be scholars P. 284 
of Heraclitus ? Has not that Obscure Metaphysician 
anticipated them by philosophizing in their very words? 
And every one knows that he (Noetus) calls the same 
both Son and Father. For he speaks thus; When 
the Father had not been born, He was rightly called 
Father. But when it pleased Him to undergo birth, 
then by birth He became the Son of Himself, and 
not of another. For thus he thinks to establish the 
principle of Monarchianism, saying, that one and the 
same Essence is called by the two names, Father and 
Son; not one born from the other, but Himself born 
from Himself, and called by the name of Father or 
Son, according to the change of times ; but that He is 
one, He who was manifested to the world, and who 
deigned to undergo birth of a Virgin, and conversed 
as man with man, and who to those that beheld Him 
confessed Himself to be a Son, on account of His 
birth, but who also did not conceal from those who 
received Him that He was a Father. That He 
suffered, having been nailed to the Cross, and that 
having commended His Spirit to Himself, and having 
died and not died, and having on the third day raised 
Himself, Who had been buried in the tomb, and 
wounded with a spear, and pierced with nails, that He 
15 the God of the Universe and Father—so says 
Cleomenes and his school, who thus envelope many 
with the darkness of Heraclitus. 





17. τοῦτον πάθει ξύλου mpoomayévta. Ita Millerus. In Codice 


72 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


\ 
Ταύτην τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκράτυνε Κάλλιστος, ἀνὴρ ἐν 

f a A \ , / 
25 κακίᾳ πανοῦργος καὶ ποικίλος πρὸς πλάνην, θηρώμενος 

a a - ” 
τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς θρόνον. Tov Zedupivov, ἄνδρα 
ἐδιώτην καὶ ἀγράμματον καὶ ἄπειρον τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν 
ὅρων, ὃν πείθων δόγμασι καὶ ἀπαιτήσεσιν ἀπειρημέναις 
ἦγεν εἰς ὃ ἐβούλετο, ὄντα δωρολήπτην καὶ φιλάργυρον, 
-“ fal a \ 
P, 285 ἔπειθεν ἀεὶ στάσεις ἐμβαλεῖν ἀναμέσον τῶν ἀδελφῶν, αὐτὸς 
τὰ ἀμφότερα μέρη ὕστερον κερκωπείοις λόγοις πρὸς ἑαυτοῦ 

/ 4 \ tad \ » , , “ 
φιλίαν κατασκευάζων, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἀλήθειαν λέγων ὅμοια 

a \ > ὁδί \@ a ’ / 4 ΄ 
φρονοῦσι ποτὲ καθ᾽ ἡδίαν τὰ ὅμοια φρονεῖν ἠπάτα" πάλιν 
> a 

58 αὐτοῖς τὰ Σαβελλίου ὁμοίως, dv καὶ αὐτὸν ἐξέστησε 
δυνάμε θοῦν. Ἔν γὰρ τῷ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθα 
μενον κατορθοῦν. Ev γὰρ τῷ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι 
οὐκ ἐσκληρύνετο' ἡνίκα δὲ σὺν τῷ Καλλίστῳ ἐμόναζεν, 

ς > > an > ‘ \ a / Ἁ , 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνεσείετο πρὸς τὸ δόγμα τὸ Κλεομένους 
ῥέπειν, φάσκοντος τὰ ὅμοια φρονεῖν. Ὃ δὲ τότε μὲν τὴν 

i “ 3 a > + ey 4 50 δὲ » e ὃ , 
το πανουργίαν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐνόει, αὖθις δὲ ἔγνω, ὡς διηγήσομαι 


μετ᾽ οὐ πολύ. 


25. ποικῖλος εἰ Onpduevos. 29. Cod. ὃ βούλετο. I. Cod. 
ἀναμέσων. 2. Cod. κερκώποι. ib. Cod. ἑαυτοὺς 
φιλίαν. 3. Fort. τοῖς μὲν ἐν; ἀληθείᾳ. Miller. ib. Fort. λέγων 
τὰ ὅμοια φρονεῖν πάτα πάλιν δὲ αὐτοῖς φρονοῦσι ποτὲ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τὰ Σαβ. 
Miller. 6. Leg. videtur δυνάμενος. Miller. 9. Cod. ῥαπεῖν 


correxit Millerus. 





literze post προσπαγ--- exesze sunt; fortasse legendum προσπαγῆναι vel 
παθεῖν ξύλῳ προσπαγέντα. 

24. Callistus, postea Romanz Ecclesiz Episcopus A.D. 218—223. 
Zephyrinus sederat A.D. 202—218. 

29. Comparanda sunt que infra de Noéto, et de Callisto, dicturus 
est Hippolytus in compendio sive ἀνακεφαλαιώσει, lib. x. pp. 329, 330. 

3. τοῖς μὲν ἀλήθειαν λέγων ὅμοια φρονοῦσιν ποτὲ καθ᾽ ἡ δίαν τὰ ὅμοια 
φρονεῖν Andra: πάλιν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰ Σαβελλίου ὁμοίως. Ita MS. Pro 
vitioso ΚΑΘ᾽ ‘HAI’AN legendum conjecerim ΚΑΤ᾽ ἸΔΕΙΑΝ, i.e. under 


ot 


ZEPHYRINUS AND CALLISTUS. 73 


CALLISTUS strengthened this heresy ; a man crafty 
in evil, and versatile in deceit, aspiring to the Epis- 
copal throne. He influenced ZEPHYRINUS, who 
was an unlearned and illiterate person, and unskilled 
in Ecclesiastical definitions, and whom, being a re- 
ceiver of bribes and covetous, Callistus led as he 
pleased, persuading him by dogmas and forbidden 
demands; Callistus was ever instigating him to 
introduce strife among the brethren; and then 
Callistus himself swayed both sides by wily words to 
incline to friendship with himself; and at one time 
speaking true doctrine to the one party, who held 
like sentiments (to the truth), he, under pretence of 
agreeing with them, deluded them; and at another 
time speaking with similar language (of duplicity) to 
those who held the doctrine of Sabellius, whom also 
himself he made to fall, when he might have remained 
right. For when Sabellius was exhorted by me he 
was not obstinate; but when he was alone with 
Callistus, he was instigated by him (professing to be 
of his opinion) to incline to the doctrine of Cleomenes. 
Sabellius did not then perceive his subtlety, but after- 
wards he discovered it, as I will shortly tell. 





outward semblance of agreement. Tales hereticorum preestigias tangit 
Irenzeus, ili. 17. ‘‘ Similia loquentes fidelibus non solum dissimilia 
sapiunt sed et contraria, et per omnia plena blasphemiis per que inter- 
ficiunt eos qui per similitudinem verborum dissimile affectionis eorum 
in se attrahunt venenum.” Pro αὐτοῖς recté Bunsenius (i. p. 132) ad 
τοῖς, 2.2. φρονοῦσι τὰ Σαβελλίου. 

5. Novatian. de Trin. 12. ‘‘ Quid dubitant cum Sabellii temeritate 
misceri qui Christum Patrem dicit ?” 


P. 285 


74 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


Αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Zedupivov προάγων δημοσίᾳ ἔπειθε 
λέγειν" ᾿Εγὼ οἶδα ἕνα θεὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, καὶ πλὴν 
> a 4 > / \ \ 4 \ \ 
αὐτοῦ ἕτερον οὐδένα γενητὸν καὶ παθητόν. ἸΠοτὲ δὲ 
15 λέγων, Οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ υἱὸς, οὕτως 
bla “Ὁ A 
ἄπαυστον τὴν στάσιν ἐν τῷ λαῷ διετήρησεν, οὗ τὰ 
νοήματα γνόντες ἡμεῖς οὐ συνεχωροῦμεν, ἐλέγχοντες καὶ 
> / e \ nw > ’ ἃ > > l4 
ἀντικαθιστάμενοι ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας" ὃς εἰς ἀπόνοιαν 
χωρῶν διὰ τὸ πάντας αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποκρίσει συντρέχειν, 
e a rn fal 
20 ἡμᾶς δὲ od, ἀπεκάλει ἡμᾶς διθέους, ἐξεμῶν παρὰ βίαν 
τὸν ἐνδομυχοῦντα αὐτῷ ἰόν. 
Τούτου τὸν βίον δοκεῖ ἡμῖν ἀγαπητὸν ἐκθέσθαι, ἐπεὶ 
Ἁ > a. , e a > , “ ΄-“ 
κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἡμῖν ἐγεγόνει, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ 
φανῆναι τοῦ τοιούτου τὴν ἀναστροφὴν, εὐεπέίγνωστος καὶ 
2 -“" a r ” »7f\ / ς 7 
5 ταχεῖα τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσιν εὐθὴς γένηται ἡ διὰ τούτου 
ἐπικεχειρημένη αἵρεσις. 
Οὗτος ἐμαρτύρησεν ἐπὶ Φουσκιανοῦ ἐπάρχου ὄντος 
‘p , ε δὲ , a ee, , , > 
ὥὦμης. “O δὲ τρόπος τῆς αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας τοιόσδε Hv. 
Οἱ / a. Ψ K / \ > ὃ Ἁ Ὁ“ 
P. 28 ἰκέτης ἐτύγχανε Καρποφόρου τινὸς ἀνδρὸς πιστοῦ 
by 3 a / a. Καὶ 7 ς ΄ 
ὄντος ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. 'Τούτῳ ὁ Καρποφύρος, 
ἅτε δὴ ὡς πιστῷ, χρῆμα οὐκ ὀλίγον κατεπίστευσεν, 
ἐπαγγειλάμενος κέρδος προσοίσειν ἐκ πραγματείας 


17. Cod. ἐλλέγχοντε-. 20. Cod. παραβίαν. 21. Cod. 
ἐνδομοιχοῦντα. 26. Cod. ἐπικεχειρημέναι. 





23. ὅπως εὐεπίγνωστος καὶ ταχεῖα τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσιν "EYOHS γένηται, 
Ita MS. Millerus εὐθὺς, et aliud adjectivum in ταχεῖα latere arbitratur. 
Hereticorum commenta ab Hippolyto nostro exagitantur non tantum ut 
odio et execratione digna, sed ut ridicule et aniles fabule idedque ludi- 
brio habendz. Vide sup. 279, 7. ὕπως καταφρονηθῶσιν : et αἱρέσεις 
katayeAdorous, inf. 334, 35. Mihi igitur in mentem venit καὶ TA’XA 
τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσιν EY HOH'S γένηται, ὦ. ¢. ut facilis cognitu sit, et fortasse 
fatua prudentioribus, z.e. eorum sententia. 

27. euaptipnoev—ironice. 


ZEPHYRINUS BISHOP OF ROME. 75 


Callistus, putting Zephyrinus himself forward 
publicly induced him to say, “I know one God, 
Christ Jesus, and beside Him I know none, who was 
born and suffered.” But he (Callistus) sometimes 
saying “Not the Father suffered, but the Son,” thus 
kept alive the strife without respite among our people. 
But we perceiving his devices did not give place to 
_ him, confuting him and resisting him for the Truth’s 
sake. Then being driven to infatuation because all 
others went along with him in his hypocrisy but I did 
not, he used to call me a ditheist, disgorging violently 
the venom which lurked within him. 

This man’s life it seems to me desirable to narrate, 
since he was contemporary with me; in order, that, 
by the manifestation of his conversation, the Heresy 
which was broached by him may become easy of 
cognizance to those who have sense, and haply may 
be regarded as childish by them. 

He was a martyr (forsooth) when Fuscianus was 
Prefect of Rome. And the manner of his martyrdom 
was as follows ; 

He was servant of a certain Carpophorus, a Christian P. 286 
of Czsar’s household. Carpophorus entrusted him, as 
a Christian, with a considerable sum of money, on his 
professing that he would bring him gain from the 





4. ἐπαγγειλάμενος κέρδος προσοίσει. Legendum potius videtur 
ἐπαγγειλαμένῳ. Cui conjecture aliquantum favere Codex ipse videtur, 
nullum supra syllabam λα accentum habens. Cf. supra, Philosoph. 261, 
19. ὁρᾶν ἐπαγγέλλονται τυφλώττοντες profitentur se videre, etsi czecu- 
tiant. 


76 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


rn, a Ν ΄ ἢ 7, 2 A 
5 τραπεζιτικῆς" ὃς λαβὼν τράπεζαν ἐπεχείρησεν ἐν TH 
lal a e Qn A 
λεγομένῃ πισκινῇ πουπλικῇ, ᾧ οὐκ ὀλίγαι παραθῆκαι τῷ 
΄ 2 / ς \ lal \ > a s 
χρόνῳ ἐπιστεύθησαν ὑπὸ χηρῶν καὶ ἀδελφῶν προσχή- 
ματι τοῦ Καρποφόρουι ‘O δὲ ἐξαφανίσας τὰ πάντα 
ἠπόρει. Οὗ ταῦτα πράξαντος, οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς ἀπαγγείλῃ 
fal , _ ee Gee 4 > a 4 > > a 
10 τῷ Καρποφόρῳ᾽ ὁ δὲ ἔφη ἀπαιτεῖν λόγους παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 
Ταῦτα συνιδὼν ὁ Κάλλιστος καὶ τὸν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου 
κίνδυνον ὑφορώμενος, ἀπέδρα τὴν φυγὴν κατὰ θάλασσαν 
ποιούμενος" ὃς εὑρὼν πλοῖον ἐν τῷ Πόρτῳ ἕτοιμον πρὸς 
> A σ΄ > 7 , 3 , ΄ 
ἀναγωγὴν, ὅπου ἐτύγχανε πλέων, ἀνέβη πλευσόμενος. 
15 Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ οὕτως λαθεῖν δεδύνηται" οὐ γὰρ ἔλυπεν ὃς 
ἀπαγγείλῃ τῷ Καρποφόρῳ τὸ γεγενημένον. Ὃ δὲ 
ἐπιστὰς κατὰ τὸν λιμένα, ἐπειρᾶτο ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον ὁρμᾶν 
\ , a hrs Φ \ ? f a , 
κατὰ μεμηνυμένα. Τοῦτο δὲ ἣν ἑστὸς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ λιμένι, 
τοῦ δὲ πορθμέως βραδύνοντος, ἰδὼν πόρρωθεν ὁ ἹΚάλλιστος 


8. Cod. ἐξαφανήσας-. 9. Cod. ἔλειπεν, sed ἔλιπεν bis infra 
lin. 18, et 21, p. 287. 18. “In μεμηνυμένα, syllabee μὴν exesze 
tenuia vestigia supersunt.” Miller. 19. Cod. πόρροθεν. 





5. Nondum, ut videtur, leges illze ab Ecclesia fuerant late, que rem 
foenerariam Christianis interdicebant, et pecuniam ex usuris conquisitam 
abominari jubebant. Tertullianus quidem lib. iv. c. Marcionem. 
‘*Percurre ait sequentia Ezekielis de viro justo. Pecuniam suam 
Jenori non dedit, et quod abundaverit non sumet, foenoris scilicet redun- 
dantiam, que est usura.” Hinc, temporis processu, primum in Clericos 
foeneratores, deinde etiam in laicos, poenas irrogavit Ecclesia; Can. 
Nicen. 17. Arelat. i. c. 12, Arelat. ii. c. 14. Eliberit. c. 20. Turon. 
i. c. 13. Vide quee de hac re fusé et exquisité disseruit, seeculi nostri 
genio non admodum placitura, Przsul eruditissimus Wintoniensis L. 
Andrewes. Lond. 1629.—Piscina Publica ; regio Urbis Rome XIIma 
inter Aventinum collem et Ccelium. 

6. ᾧ. Sic Miller; sed Codex habere videtur és. 

10. 6 δὲ ἔφη ἀπαιτεῖν λόγους. Post ἀπαιτεῖν excidisse videtur ἄν. 

13. Portus Romanus, duo millia passuum ab Ostia distans septentrionem 
versus, ad os Tiberinum, quindecim fere millia ab urbe Roma. Ibi Hip- 
polytus ipse ‘‘Episcopus Nationum,” ad Portum confluentium, fuisse 
videtur, et martyrium subiisse, teste Prudentio ; vide infr. cap. xiv. 


CALLISTUS. 77 


occupation of a banker. He (Callistus) set up a bank P. 286 
in the fzscina publica, and in course of time many 
deposits were entrusted to him by widows and 
brethren, through the influence of the namé of Car- 
pophorus. But Callistus, having embezzled them all, 
was in a great strait. And when he was in this 
plight, tidings did not fail to reach Carpophorus, who 
said that he would call him to account. When Callistus 
perceived this, and apprehended the danger which 
threatened him from his master, he ran away, taking 
flight towards the sea; and having found a ship at 
PORTUS ready to sail, he embarked with a purpose to 
sail whithersoever the vessel might be bound. But 
not even thus could he escape: for the news did not 
fail to reach the ears of Carpophorus. And he, 
standing on the shore, endeavoured, according to the 
information he had received, to make for the ship, 
which was in the middle of the harbour. But when 
the boatman (who was to ferry Carpophorus) was 





14. ὕπου ἐτύγχανε πλέων. Ita Cod. Lege πλέον. 

ib. ἀνέβη. Sic Miller. Codex, ut puto, ἄνεισι. 

15. ov yap €Auwe—In hac formula, ter repetité, salsa quaedam ironia 
videtur inesse, qua innuitur Callistum malo quodam genio fuisse exagi- 
tatum, qui ejus vestigiis insisteret et eum, tanquam umbra, semper 
persequeretur. Czeterum ex hac et similibus loquendi formulis quz in 
hac narratione passim obvize sunt recté statuitur, Auctoris nostri stylum 
etsi Greecia vel Asia oriundi Latinum dicendi colorem imbibisse, eumque 
ipsum lingua, ut par est credere, aliquantulum βεβαρβαρῶσθαι, χρόνιον 
ὄντ᾽ ἐν BapBdpo.s. : 

17. Locum sic interpunge: ἐπειρᾶτο ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον ὁρμᾶν κατὰ τὰ 
μεμηνυμένα, τοῦτο δὲ ἦν ἑστὸς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ λιμένι" (et sic, uti nunc vidi, 
Codex) τοῦ δὲ πορθμέως βραδύνοντος- κ.τ.λ. 

18, κατὰ μεμηνυμένα. T.egere mallem κατὰ τὰ μεμηνυμένα. 


78 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


20 τὸν δεσπότην, ὧν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καὶ γνοὺς ἑαυτὸν συν- 
ηλεῖφθαι, ἠφείδησε τοῦ ζῆν καὶ ἔσχατα ταῦτα λογισά- 
μενος ἔρριψεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. Οἱ δὲ ναῦται 
καταπηδήσαντες εἰς τὰ σκάφη ἄκοντα αὐτὸν ἀνείλοντο. 
Τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς μεγάλα βοώντων, καὶ οὗτος τῷ 

« 

25 δεσπότῃ παραδοθεὶς ἐπανήχθη εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην" ὃν ὁ 
δεσπότης εἰς πίστρινον κατέθετο. 

Χρόνου δὲ διελθόντος, ὡς συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι, προσ- 
ελθόντες ἀδελφοὶ παρεκάλουν τὸν Καρποφόρον ὅπως 
> / an ΄ Ν ͵ ͵ > & 
eEayayn τῆς κολάσεως τὸν δραπέτην, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν 
ς Ὁ ” ΄ an > / ς \ 

P. 287 ὁμολογεῖν ἔχειν παρά τισι χρῆμα ἀποκείμενον. Ὃ δὲ 
Καρποφόρος ὡς εὐλαβὴς, τοῦ μὲν ἰδίου ἔλεγεν ἀφειδεῖν, 

Ὁ“ \ lal / Φ \ \ > a > έ 
τῶν δὲ παραθηκῶν φροντίζειν" πολλοὶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀτ-- 
εκλαίοντο λέγοντες, STL τῷ αὐτοῦ προσχήματι ἐπίστευσαν 

5 τῷ Καλλίστῳ, ἃ πεπιστεύκεισαν' καὶ πεισθεὶς ἐκέλευσεν 
ἐξωγαγεῖν αὐτόν. 

ὋὉ δὲ μηδὲν ἔχων ἀποδιδόναι, καὶ πάλιν ἀποδιδράσκειν 

\ ΄, \ \ a , ΄ 
μὴ δυνάμενος διὰ τὸ φρουρεῖσθαι, τέχνην θανάτου 
3 4 \ ΄ ΄ 5 ΄ e ΕΑ 
ἐπενόησε' καὶ σαββάτῳ σκηψάμενος ἀπιέναι ὡς ἐπὶ 

10 χρεώστας, ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαΐων 
συνηγμένων, καὶ στὰς κατεστασίαζεν αὐτῶν. Οἱ δὲ 
καταστασιασθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐνυβρίσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ 

Ν > / 4 , oe \ Ν 
πληγὰς ἐμφορήσαντες, ἔσυρον ἐπὶ τὸν Φϑουσκιανὸν 
» ” n , ᾽ / \ sO, 
ἔπαρχον ὄντα τῆς πόλεως. ᾿Απεκρίναντο δὲ τάδε 

15 Ῥωμαῖον συνεχώρησαν ἡμῖν τοὺς πατρῴους νόμους 


4. Cod. τῷ αὐτῷ. 8. Cod. φθορεῖσθαι. 9. Cod. σκεψάμενος. 





20. Pro vitios4 lectione Codicis συνηλεῖφθαι restituendum συνειλῆφθαι, 
confusio orta ex syllabarum ὁμοφωνίᾳ, uberrimo fonte mendarum, quibus 
libri scatent przesertim recentiores, qualis hic est Codex Parisinus. 

4. αὐτοῦ. Sic Miller, Codex αὐτῷ. 


CALLISTUS. 79 


lingering, Callistus, being in the ship, saw his master 
from a distance, and perceiving himself to be caught, 
hazarded his life, and, thinking that all was now over 
with him, he threw himself into the sea. But the 
sailors having leapt into the boats took him up 
against his will. And while those who were on the 
shore set up a loud shout, he was delivered to his 
master and brought back to Rome: where his master 
shut him up in the pistrinum (of runaway slaves). 
But in course of time, as is wont to be the case, 
certain brethren came to Carpophorus and besought 
him to release his runaway slave from punishment, 
saying that he declared that he had money vested in 
the hands of certain persons. Carpophorus, like a P. 287 
pious man, said that he did not care for his own 
money, but that he was anxious for the deposits ; for 
many bewailed themselves to him, saying that it was 
by reason of his name that they confided to Callistus 
what they had entrusted to him ; and being thus per- 
suaded, he ordered them to bring him out of prison. 
But having nothing to pay, and not being able to 
run away again, on account of being watched, he 
devised a plan for his own destruction. On a Satur- 
day, under pretence of going away to his debtors, he 
went to the Synagogue of the Jews, who were 
assembled in it; and he stood there and made a 
tumult against them. And they being thus disturbed 
abused him and beat him, and dragged him before 
Fuscianus, prefect of the city. And thus they 
answered,—“ The Romans have given us leave to read 


80 REFUTATION OF HERESIES. 


δημοσίᾳ ἀναγινώσκειν: οὗτος δὲ ἐπεισελθὼν ἐκώλυε 
καταστασιάζων ἡμῶν, φάσκων εἷναι Χριστιανός. Τοῦ δὲ 
fa) a % 
Φουσκιανοῦ πρὸ βήματος τυγχάνοντος, καὶ τοῖς ὑπ' 
Ἰουδαίων λεγομένοις κατὰ τοῦ Καλλίστου ἀγανακτοῦντος, 
20 οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὁ ἐπαγγείλας τῷ Καρποφόρῳ τὰ πρασσόμενα. 
ὋὉ δὲ σπεύσας ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα τοῦ ἐπάρχου ἐβόα Δέομαι, 
κύριε Φουσκιανὲ, μὴ σὺ αὐτῷ πίστευε, οὐ γάρ ἐστι 
Ν > \ \ “Ὁ ’ὔ’ / / 
Χριστιανὸς, ἀφορμὴν δὲ (pret θανάτου χρήματά μου 
πολλὰ ἀφανίσας, ὡς ἀποδείξω. Τῶν δὲ ᾿Ιουδαίων 
25 ὑποβολὴν τοῦτο νομισάντων, ὡς ζητοῦντος τοῦ Καρπο- 
φόρου ταύτῃ τῇ προφάσει ἐξελέσθαι αὐτὸν, μᾶλλον 
ἐπιφθόνως κατεβόων τοῦ ἐπάρχου. Ὃ δὲ κινηθεὶς ὑπ᾽ 
ϑ. .ὋἪὶ , TO | »” > Γῇ 
αὐτῶν, μαστυγώσας αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν εἰς μέταλλον Σαρδὸ- 
νίας. 

οἶ 4 ᾿ δι £ 3 a ” , 
30 Mera χρόνον δὲ ἑτέρων ἐκεῖ ὄντων μαρτύρων 

θ Xr: / e M / ” > Ac b] ΄ὔ 0 9S 
eAnoaca ἡ Mapkia ἔργον τι ἀγαθὸν ἐργάσασθαι, οὖσα 

18. (οά. φοσκιανοῦ. 22. Cod. μὴ ἑαυτῷ. 





16. De Judzis Rome patria sacra liberé colentibus Caesareanorum 
edictorum indulgentia videri potest Joseph. Antiqq. xix. 10, quee vim 
obtinuisse videntur usque ad Severum Septimium, qui ‘‘ Judzos fieri 
sub gravi poena vetuit,” teste Spartiano, c. 17; non tamen ille Judzis 
ipsis jam hereditaria vel patria successione religioni suze publicum exer- 
citium interdicens. Post Severi dominationem Judzis favebat Ela- 
gabalus. Lamprid. c. 3, et Severus Alexander Judzis privilegia 
reservavit. Lamprid. c. 22. 

28. Fodinis ferri celebrem fuisse Sardiniam satis notum ex Rutilii 
Itinerario, lib. 1. ‘‘Quze de Sardoo cespite massa fluit.” Hine 
hodie ‘‘ Ferraria” urbs Sardinize, de qua Cluverius ii. c. xi. Sardiniam 
pestifero aére infamem fuisse tradit Claudianus, Β. Gild. v. 514, 
monente Cluverio. Huc Martyras fuisse deportatos ex Chronicis et 
Martyrologiis constat. Catalog. Felician. ὃ 6. ‘‘Eodem tempore 
Pontianus Episcopus (Romz) et Hippolytus presbyter exilio sunt 
deputati (deportati) ab Alexandro in Sardiniam, insulam Bucinam 
(nocivam).” Id quod Anastasius de vitis Pontif. in v. Pontiani factum 
fuisse tradit, Severo et Quintiano Coss. ἢ. 6. A.D. 235, Maximino 


CALLISTUS. 81 


the Law of our Fathers in public. But this man here P. 287 
came in and interrupted us, making an uproar against 
us, saying that he is a Christian.” Fuscianus being 
seated on the bench, and being exasperated by what 
the Jews said against Callistus, tidings did not fail to 
come to the ears of Carpophorus. He hastened to 
the tribunal of the Prefect, and exclaimed, “1 entreat 
thee, my Lord Fuscianus, do not believe him, for he 
is not a Christian, but seeks an occasion of death, 
having embezzled much money of mine, as I will 
show.” But the Jews thought this was a subterfuge, 
as if Carpophorus desired to extricate him by this 
plea, and clamoured more vehemently in the ears of 
the Prefect. And he, being urged by them, scourged 
Callistus, and sentenced him to the mines in Sar- 
dinia. 

But after a time, there: being other Martyrs there, 
Marcia the concubine of (the Emperor) Commodus, 





Thrace annum jam primum imperante, quo anno Pontianus. in Sardinia 
mortem obiisse dicitur, iv.. Kal. Octobres. 

31. De Marcia, Commodi Imperatoris concubina, Dio Cassius, Lxxii. 
4. Μαρκία tis, Κουδράτου τῶν τότε φονευθέντων ἑνὸς παλλακὴ, καὶ Ἔκ- 
λεκτος πρόκοιτοκ, ὃ μὲν καὶ τοῦ Κομμόδου πρόκοιτος, ἣ δὲ (Μαρκία) παλλακὴ 
ἐγένετο καὶ τοῦ Ἑκλέκτου μετὰ ταῦτα: γυνὴ, καὶ ἐπεῖδε καὶ ἐκείνους 
βιαίως ἀποθνήσκονταΞξ᾽ ἱστορεῖται δὲ αὕτη πολλά τε ὑπὲρ τῶν Χρισ- 
τιανῶν σπουδάσαι καὶ πολλὰ αὐτοὺς εὐεργετηκέναι ἅτε καὶ παρὰ 
Κομμόδῳ πᾶν δυναμένη. Marciam, Commodi Imperatoris concubinam, 
deinde interfectricem, ab Hippolyto vocari φιλόθεον fortasse mireris: 
sed hoc, ut opinor, et uti jam docuit censor Arnoldianus (p. 591), 
εἰρωνικῶς scripsit noster, ut, de Callisto loquens, ἐμαρτύρησεν p. 285. 
Quo, queris, animo? eodem fortasse quo Carpophorum pium hominem 
sed tamen fceneratorem, et Hyacinthum presbyterum sed tamen spa- 
donem, dixisse videtur, ut Ecclesize disciplinam tum temporis nutantem 
tacité notaret. 


G 


P. 288 


5 


82 PHILOSOPHUMENA. 


/ Ud \ 
φιλόθεος παλλακὴ Kopodov, προσκαλεσαμένη τὸν 
΄ 3... BY δι ἢ a 9 t > 
μακάριον Οὐΐκτορα, ὄντα ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ᾿Εἰκκλησίας κατ 
3 a ae) ΄ / 3 23 / ΄ 
ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ, ἐπηρώτα τίνες εἶεν ἐν Σαρδονίᾳ μάρτυρες. 
‘O δὲ πάντων ἀναδοὺς τὰ ὀνόματα, τὸ τοῦ Καλλίστου 
> ” ὯΝ 4 r 4 5 a an 
οὐκ ἔδωκεν, εἰδὼς τὰ τετολμημένα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Τυχοῦσα 
οὖν τῆς ἀξιώσεως ἡ Μαρκία παρὰ τοῦ ἸΚομόδου, δίδωσι 
τὴν ἀπολυσίμην ἐπιστολὴν “Ὑακίνθῳ τινὶ σπάδοντι 
/ 
πρεσβυτέρῳ, ὃς λαβὼν διέπλευσεν εἰς τὴν Σαρδονίαν, 
καὶ ἀποδοὺς τῷ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ τῆς χώρας ἐπιτρο- 


πεύοντι, ἀπέλυσε τοὺς μάρτυρας, πλὴν τοῦ Καλλίστου. 


ς \ “Ὁ Ν 7 tee \ } a -»" 
ιο Ὁ δὲ γονυπετῶν καὶ δακρύων ἱκέτευε καὶ αὐτὸς τυχεῖν 


15 


ἀπολύσεως. Δυσωπηθεὶς οὖν ὁ “TaxwOos ἀξιοῖ τὸν 
ἐπίτροπον φάσκων θρέψας εἶναι Μαρκίας, τασσόμενος 
> «A \ : ef «ς \ \ 3 / \ \ 
αὐτῷ τὸ ἀκίνδυνον. “O δὲ πεισθεὶς ἀπέλυσε καὶ τὸν 
Κάλλιστον᾽ οὗ παραγενομένου ὁ Οὐΐκτωρ πάνυ ἤχθετο 
ΣΟΙ A a ey oat eG eS, 5 δι ὦ Ξ 
ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ εὔσπλαγχνος ἦν, ἡσύχασε 
φυλασσόμενος δὲ τὸν ὑπὸ πολλῶν ὄνειδον (οὐ γὰρ ἦν 
\ \ a > a / ” \ \ n 
μακρὰν τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τετολμημένα), Ets δὲ καὶ τοῦ 
Καρποφόρου ἀντιπίπτοντος, πέμπει αὐτὸν καταμένειν ἐν 
"A 0 / ς / > ἴω afr 3 “4 
νθείῳ, ορίσας αὐτῷ pnviaiov τι ἐκτροφάς. 
32. Cod. παλακή. 4. Cod. τὰ τολμημένα. 19. “ Fort. ᾿Αντίῳ. 


Certe Antium dicere videtur.” Miller. ib. ‘*Erat a prima τη. 
ἐκτροφῖς. Corrigendum eis tpopds.”’ Miller. 





32. Czeterum hic lector meminerit quid in tali re statuerit Ecclesia, 
Hippolyto nostro cozetanea ; nisi interpolatricem manum passa sit in 
illo capite παράδοσις ᾿Αποστολικὴ διὰ Ἱππολύτου, Ὁ. 254, ed. Fabr. 
Παλλακή τινος ἀπίστου δούλη ἐκείνῳ μόνῳ σχολάζουσα προσδεχέσθω, εἰ 
δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλους ἀσελγαίνει, ἀποβαλλέσθω.. . « 

6. Spadones (ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εὐνουχισθένταΞ5) ad sacros ordines promoveri 
posted vetitum Canon. Apostol. 21. Conc. Niczen. ¢. 1. Arelat. ii. 7. 
Sed, ut supra monui, Hippolytus tacité innuit hoc epitheto disciplinam 
Ecclesize Romanee fuisse luxatam. 

12. Codicis lectionem φάσκων θρέψας εἶναι Μαρκίας, vitiosam censent 
Millerus et Bunsenius (i. p. 130), hic legendum conjiciens φάσκων 


CALLISTUS. 83 


being a religious woman and desirous of doing a good 
work, having sent for Victor, of blessed memory, who 
was then Bishop of the Church, inquired of him what 
martyrs were in Sardinia. He gave her all their 
names, but did not present to her the name of Callis- 
tus, knowing the crimes that had been perpetrated 
by him. Marcia having obtained her suit from 
Commodus, gives the letter of release to a certain 
Hyacinthus, an eunuch, a presbyter, who having 
received it, sailed to Sardinia, and having delivered 
it to the then Governor of the Island, released the 
martyrs,—except Callistus. 

But he fell down on his knees before him, and wept 
and prayed that he might be released. Hyacinthus 
then being moved, desires the Governor to set him 
free, saying that he himself had brought up Marcia, 
and promising himindemnity. He, being persuaded, 
liberated Callistus also. But when he reached Rome, 
Victor was much distressed by what had taken place, 
but, being a kind-hearted man, he held his peace; but 
guarding against the obloquy from many, (for the 
crimes of Callistus were recent,) and because Carpo- 
phorus still urged his charge (against Callistus), he 
sent him (Callistus) to stay at Antium, settling on him 
a monthly allowance for his maintenance. 





ἑαυτῷ μὲν τοῦτο ἐπιτρέψαι Mapklay τὸ τασσόμενον, αὐτῷ δὲ εἶναι ἀκίνδυνον. 
Sed Codicis lectio est prorsus sanissima. Participium θρέψας Μαρκίας 
dicitur pro nomine substantivo τροφεὺς Μαρκίας, ut θρέψας αὐτῶν in 
cippo sepulchrali apud Schaefer ad Greg. Corinth. p. 614. Vide etiam 
Lobeck. ad Soph. Ajac. 358, p. 277, qui exemplorum affatim dabit. 
19. ᾿Ανθείῳ, z. e. Antio, quod Antheia vocatur a Stephano Byzantio, 


G 2 


P. 288' 


84 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


, a 
22 Me’ οὗ κοίμησιν Zepupivos συναράμενον αὐτὸν σχὼν 
\ \ ΄ a a 
πρὸς τὴν κατάστασιν τοῦ κλήρου ἐτίμησε τῷ ἰδίῳ κακῷ, 
καὶ τοῦτον μεταγαγὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ανθείου εἰς τὸ κοιμητήριον 
/ e - eS \ \ \ 7 - 
κατέστησεν. “Ou ἀεὶ συνὼν, καὶ καθὼς φθάσας προεῖπον 
ςε ͵ > \ 7 > ΄ , a . 
ὑποκρίσει αὐτὸν θεραπεύων ἐξεφάνισε μήτε κρῖναι τὰ 
25 λεγόμενα δυνάμενον μήτε νοοῦντα τὴν τοῦ Καλλίστου 
ἐπιβουλὴν, πάντα αὐτῷ πρὸς ἃ ἥδετο ὁμιλοῦντος. 
Οὕτω μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Zedhupivov τελευτὴν νομίζων 
Ρ, 289 τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς μὴ 
lal ? θ lal ὃ ὃ \ > \ \ / ΄ ὃ 7 θ 
φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς ἐμὲ καὶ νομίζων οὕτω δύνασθαι 
2 / \ Ἂν \ > / / e \ 
ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς Tas ἐκκλησίας κατηγορίαν, ὡς μὴ 


ἀλλοτρίως φρονῶν. "Hv οὖν γόης καὶ πανοῦργος καὶ ἐπὶ 


20. Cod. κύμησιν. ib. Cod. Zegupivoy . . αράμενον, ““ duabus literis 
exesis, quarum: prior o fuisse cognoscitur : gvapduevov.” Miller. 





stadia CCLX. ab. Ostia distans, XXXVIII. M.P. ab urbe Roma, 
meridiem versus in litore maris Tyrrheni, hodié Porto d Anzo; de eo 
Horat. 1 Od. xxxv. 

19. unviatov, Auctor Parvi Labyrinthi (idem qui noster Hippolytus) 
apud Euseb, v. 28. ἀνεπείσθη 6 Νατάλιος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ σαλαρίῳ ἐπίσκοπος 
κληρωθῆναι ταύτης τῆς αἱρέσεως ὥστε λαμβάνειν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν μηνιαῖα 
δηνάρια ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα. 

ib. Pro ἐκτροφὰς legere mallem εἰς τροφάς. Literze K et IS (1. 2 
IC) seepe in MSS. confunduntur. 

20. Kolunow,—confer: infra, v. 32, Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν, unde satis 
liquet Zephyrinum non.martyrio animam efflasse, quod contra recentiores 
Martyrologiorum Romanorum consarcinatores monere fas sit. 

ib. αὐτὸν ad Carpophorum refert vir eruditus in Censura Arnoldiand, 
p- 592. Sed ad Callistum potius retulerim, ut αὐτὸν et αὐτῷ duobus 
supra versibus de Callisto indubié dictum. Quod τοῦτον μεταγαγὼν 
de Callisto quoque addiderit id non sine ludibrio factum—Aunc 
hominem !| 

22. De ccemeteriis Christianorum non tantum inhumationis causa 
usitatis, sed ad divina officia peragenda, et sacros coetus celebrandos, 
idedque ad scholas habendas, vide Baronium ad A.D. 226, 258. 260, 


“4 


CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 85 


After Victor had fallen asleep in death, Zephyrinus 
having had him (Callistus) as a coadjutor for the 
control of the Clergy, honoured him to his own 
damage, and, having transferred him from Antium, 
set him over the Cemetery. And Callistus, being 
always with him, and,.as I said before, courting him 
with hypocrisy, eclipsed him being incapable of form- 
ing any judgment on the arguments used, and not 
perceiving the stratagem of Callistus, who accommo- 
dated all his language to his taste. 

Thus it came to pass, that after the death of .Zephy- 
rinus, Callistus presuming he had gained that to 
which he aspired, cast off Sabellius as heterodox, P- 289 
through fear of me, and supposing that he might thus 
be able to wipe off the reproach to which he was 
exposed in the eyes of the Churches, as if he were 
not of unsound belief. In good truth he was a juggler 





262. De Callisti Coemeterio in Via Appia videri potest Aringhi Roma 
Subterr. 111. c. xi. § 1. Ruggieri, p. 397. 

24. Cod. ἐξεφάνισε. Legendum ἐξηφάνισε. 

1. De Callisto, Zephytini Episcopi Romani successore, heec leguntur 
in libro Damasi, p. 608, Labbe, “ Callistus natione Romanus ex patre 
Domitio de regione urbis Ravennatum sedit annos v, mens. ii, dies x. 
Fuit temporibus Macrini et Heliogabali a consulatu Antonini et Alex- 
andri. . .. Fecit coemeterium Via Appia ubi multi sacerdotes et 
martyres requiescunt, quod appellatur usque in hodiernum diem camete- 
rium Callisti.” 

2. Hippolytus noster c. Noét. § 1. τότε τοῦτον ἐλέγξαντες of πρεσ- 
βύτεροι ἐξέωσαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, quo quidem ex loco satis patet, ut id 
obiter notemus, jus excommunicationis, Hippolyti ztate penes fuisse 
Presbyterorum Collegium,—Episcopo, (dubitari nequit,) presidente et 
omnia moderante. Noétum a Papa Victore damnatum ait auctor libelli 
Synodici a Pappo editi c. 20. a Tranquillo Episcopo Chalcedonensi, 
scribit Auctor Preedestinati, c. 36. Theodotum majorem τὸν σκυτέα ah 
Episcopo Victore ἀφωρίσθαι narrat Hippolytus. Routh. 1. 9--- 23. 


5 


Io 


15 


86 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


/ , A » 
χρόνῳ συνήρπασε πολλούς. "Eyowv δὲ καὶ τὸν ἰὸν 
> / 2 A / 352’ \ an Ὁ“ 
ἐγκείμενον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὐθέως μηδὲν φρονῶν, ἅμα 

\ \ ΄ A ‘ a 
δὲ καὶ αἰδούμενος τὰ ἀληθῆ λέγειν, διὰ τὸ δημοσίᾳ ἡμῖν 
ὀνειδίζοντα εἰπεῖν δίθεοι ἐστὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ 

/ na lal e / \ 
Σαβελλίου συχνῶς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς παραβάντος τὴν 

/ / 3 lal “ 4 , Ἀ 
πρώτην πίστιν, ἐφεῦρεν αἵρεσιν τοιάνδε, λέγων τὸν 

, ΑΒΕ “- ς > παι, \ > / \ 
λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱὸν, αὐτὸν Kal πατέρα, ὀνόματι μὲν 

, s lal 
καλούμενον, ἕν δὲ dv TO πνεῦμα ἀδιαίρετον" οὐκ ἄλλο 

3 , ” \ τὰ A \ \ \ Δικ , 
εἶναι πατέρα, ἄλλο δὲ υἱὸν, ἕν δὲ καὶ TO αὐτὸ ὑπάρχειν, 

\ a ΄ 
καὶ τὰ πάντα γέμειν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος τά τε ἄνω καὶ 
κάτω, καὶ εἶναι τὸ ἐν τῇ παρθένῳ σαρκωθὲν πνεῦμα οὐχ 
Ψ Ἀ ‘ / > \ ἃ Ν \ ee! \ 
ἕτερον παρὰ Tov πατέρα, ἀλλὰ ἕν Kal TO αὐτό. Kai 

Le > \ > 7 {ς > ΄ “ >... & bf cA 
τοῦτο εἶναι TO εἰρημένον “Οὐ πιστεύεις OTL ἐγὼ ἐν TO 

Ν f 
πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί; Td μὲν γὰρ βλεπόμενον, 


12. Cod. οὐκ ἄλο. 14. Cod. γεμεῖν. 17. Joann. xiv. 11. 





6. εὐθέως. Sic Miller; sed Codex, quem inspexi, clare habet εὐθέος, 
quemadmodum conjecerat vir eruditissimus Robertus Scott, Decanus 
nunc Roffensis, in Censura Arnoldiana, ii. p. 538. 

9. παραβάντος Codex : mallem παραβάντα. In MSS: aet os (i. 4.66} 
szepissime confundi notum est. 

11. ὀνόματι μὲν καλούμενον Cod. Ante καλούμενον excidisse videtur 
ἄλλο. 

ib. ὄντα. Sic Bunsenius recté pro Codicis lectione ὃν τό. 

18. Vide has Noétianorum exceptiones recitantem Hippolytum c. 
Noétum, § 7, locum huic nostro plané gemellum. οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ 
ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ x.7.A. καὶ θέλουσι λέγειν (of Nontiavol) διὰ τοῦτο κρατύνεσθαι 
τὸ δόγμα αὐτῶν. Vide etiam que his regerit ipse Hippolytus c. Noét. 
c. xiv. ed. Fabr. ii. 15, ubi τὸν Δόγον Deum preedicat, dos autem Deos 
se agnoscere diserté negat. ταύτην τὴν οἰκονομίαν παραδίδωσιν ἡμῖν καὶ 
ὃ μακάριος ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ μαρτυρῶν, καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ΛΟΤΟΝ 
@EO'N ὁμολογεῖ οὕτως λέγων: Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἦν 6 Λόγος καὶ ὃ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς 
τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Ei δὲ οὖν 6 Λόγος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν Θεὸς ὧν, 
τί οὖν φήσειεν ἂν τίς δύο λέγειν Θεούς ; δύο μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ Θεοὺς, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἢ ἕνα, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονομίαν δὲ τρίτην, τὴν χάριν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου 
Πνεύματος. Πατὴρ μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο ὅτι καὶ ὃ vids, τὸ δὲ 


~CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 87 


and impostor, and in process of time drew many along P. 289 
with him. And harbouring the venom in his bosom, 
and having no rectitude of mind, and at the same 
time being ashamed to profess sound doctrine because 
he had before calumniated me in public and said 
“You are a Ditheist,’ and because also he was often 
charged by Sabellius with having swerved from his 
first faith, he invented such a heresy as follows. He 
said that the Word is the Son and is also the Father, 
being called by a different name, but that the indivisi- 
ble Spirit is one ; and that the Father is not one thing 
and the Son another, but that they both are one and 
the same thing, and that all things are full of the 
Divine Spirit, both things above and things beneath, 
and that the Spirit which was Incarnate in the Virgin 
was not different from the Father, but one and the 
same, and that this was the meaning of our Lord’s 
saying, “ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me?” (John xiv. 10;) for that 





τρίτον τὸ Αγιον Πνεῦμα. Unde satis refellitur Bunsenii suspicio ex his 
Noétianorum argutiis colligentis vel Meiero colligenti adstipulantis, 
duorum Deorum dogma respuentium, de Ζεγζ sacrosanctze Trinitatis 
Persona nihil adhuc innotuisse, idedque Hippolyti state de Sancti 
Spiritfis Deitate nihil fuisse definitum. Reclamat hic ipse Hippolytus, 
reclamat, inquam, in sermone c. Noétum, ὃ 8. ἀνάγκη ὁμολογεῖν Πατέρα 
Θεὸν Παντοκράτορα καὶ Χριστὸν *Inoody υἱὸν Θεοῦ, Θεὸν ἄνθρωπον γενό- 
μενον, ᾧ πάντα Πατὴρ ὑπέταξε παρεκτὸς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, καὶ 
τούτους οὕτως εἶναι Τρία, et alio in lococ. Noét. 14. 6 γὰρ κελεύων 
Πατὴρ, ὃ δὲ ὑπακούων Ὑἱὸς, τὸ δὲ συνετίζον “Αγιον Πνεῦμα. ‘O ὧν Πατὴρ 
ἐπὶ πάντων, ὃ δὲ Ὑἱὸς διὰ πάντων, τὸ δὲ Αγιον Πνεῦμα ἐν πᾶσιν. “AAAwS 
“να Θεὸν νομίσαι οὐ δυνάμεθα ἐὰν μὴ ὄντως Πατρὶ καὶ Ὑἱῷ καὶ ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύ- 
ματι πιστεύσωμεν. Adde locum c. Noét. § 9. et doxologiam in fine, 
p- 20, ed. Fabr. Czaterum cum his conferas que scripsit Tertullian. c. 


88 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


a \ > 

ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, TO δὲ ἐν τῷ 

5 a 3 > \ 
20 νἱῷ χωρηθὲν Πνεῦμα τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν πατέρα" ov yap, 

lal ΄ > ΄ «ς 
φησὶν, ἐρῶ δύο θεοὺς, πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν, ἀλλ᾿ ἕνα. ‘O 

’ , \ / 

yap ἐν αὐτῷ γενόμενος πατὴρ, προσλαβόμενος THY σάρκα 

20 Ψ ς / ς tal 4. 9 / ἃ «ς a θ 
ἐθεοποίησεν ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἕν, ὡς καλεῖσθαι 
ἈΝ fal ἃ xX / \ 
πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν, ἕνα θεὸν, καὶ τοῦτο ἕν ὃν πρόσωπον μὴ 

ὃ 4 0 3 ὃ 7, \ «“ \ / 0 4 
25 δύνασθαι εἶναι δύο, καὶ οὕτως τὸν πατέρα συμπεπονθέναι 
A tn Ψ \ , ’ Ν , / \ 
τῷ υἱῷ" ov yap θέλει λέγειν τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι, καὶ 
ὃν εἶναι πρόσωπον, ἐκφυγεῖν τὴν εἰς τὸν πατέρα βλασ- 

ε , ΄ 
P. 290 φημίαν, ὁ ἀνόητος καὶ ποικίλος, ὁ ἄνω κάτω σχεδιάζων 
“ / / a 
βλασφημίας, iva μόνον κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας λέγειν δοκῇ, 
\ > 
ποτὲ μὲν εἰς TO Σαβελλίου δόγμα ἐμπίπτων, ποτὲ δὲ εἰς 
τὸ Θεοδότου οὐκ αἰδεῖται. 

Τοιαῦτα ὁ γόης τολμήσας, συνεστήσατο διδασκαλεῖον 
kata τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας οὕτως διδάξας, καὶ πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς 


25. Cod. συνπεπονθέναι. 





Prax. 13. ‘‘Duos tamen Deos et duos Dominos nunquam ex ore 
nostro proferimus,” ubi illorum insaniz quos ‘‘ vanissimos Monarchianos 
(c. 13)” appellat, respondet. Idem argumentum tangit Novatianus, de 
Trin. ο. 28. Vide et c. 29, qui quidem loci his Hippolyti nostri 
sententiis lucem affundunt. 

19. ἄνθρωπος. Sic Miller ; sed Codex habuit, ut opinor, ἀνθρώπινον. 
Litura est in voce. 

26. Hee sunt referentis ipsa Callisti verba vocesque in vulgus sparsas, 
ad se suamque ipsius hzeresim tuendam. 

Ceeterum Callisti orthodoxiam, idedque Hippolyti heereticam pra- 
vitatem, ex his verbis evincere pro virili nititur vir doctissimus nobisque 
amicissimus Ignatius von Dollinger, in libro celeberrimo Hipfolytus und 
Kallistus, pp. 218—236 ; quibus viri egregii conatibus reponere satis 
est, Hippolytum a Catholicé Ecclesia inter primores suos doctores 
unanimiter esse receptum, licet Callistum hzereseos arguerit, eique 
strenué restiterit. 

27. ἐκφυγεῖν. Sic Cod. ‘‘ Ante ἐκφυγεῖν quedam omissa esse 
apparet” ait Miller. .. . Legendum fortasse ἐκφυγών. Callistus pro- 
fitebatur se evasisse blasphemiam illam in quam alii inciderant. De re 


CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 89 


which was seen, that is man, was the Son; but the 
Spirit which was contained in the Son, was the 
Father. For, said Callistus, “I will never speak of 
two Gods, the Father and the Son, but One God. 
For the Father being in Him, having taken human 
flesh, divinized it by uniting it to Himself, and made 
it one, so that One God ts called Father and Son; and 
this being One Person cannot be two.” And so he 
said that the Father had.suffered :with the Son ; for he 
does not like to say that the Father suffered and was 
One Person, because he has escaped from the blas- 
phemy against the Father, he (forsooth) who is so 
infatuated and ‘versatile, and extemporizes blasphemy P. 290 
hither and thither, in order only that he may appear 
to speak against the truth, and is not ashamed of 
falling at one time into the dogma of Sabellius, and at 
another into that of Theodotus. 

This deceiver having ventured ‘to do such things, 
set up for himself a school against the Church, teach- 
ing these doctrines. And he was the first to devise 





ipsa vide Tertullian. c. Prax. 29. ‘* Directam blasphemiam in Patrem 
veriti, diminui eam hoc modo sperant, si Filius quidem patitur, Pater 
vero compatitur. . . Times Patrem dicere passibilem quem dicis ( Filio) 
compassibilem.”’ 

4. De Theodoto Byzantio, qui ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον χριστὸν dixit,’ supra 
257, infra 328. I—13. Confer item quz de Theodoto scripsit noster, 
c. Noét. 8 3, et quze scripturus est infra, lib. x. p. 330. 58. de Callisto, 
qui dicitur ποτὲ μὲν τῷ Νοητοῦ δόγματι περιρρηγνύμενος, ποτὲ δὲ τῷ 
Θεοδότου, μηδὲν ἀσφαλὲς κρατῶν. 

5. συνεστήσατο διδασκαλεῖον, scholam, non Ecclzsiam. Simili loquela 
utentem vide Hippolytum nostrum c. Noét. c. I. εἰς τοῦτο φυσίωμα 
ἠνέχθη (Nonrds) ὡς διδασκαλεῖον συστῆσαι. Vide infra p. 96. 


90 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


\ ς \ a 3 Ua a 5 , 
Tas ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐπενόησε, λέγων 
Lal ς ? > a 2 / ς / ς \ Ψ 4 [4 
πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁμαρτίας. Ὃ yap παρ᾽ ἑτέρῳ 
τινὴ συναγόμενος καὶ λεγόμενος Χριστιανὸς εἴ τι ἂν 
id / \ > / > nr e ς / > 
10 ἁμάρτῃ, φασὶν, ov λογίζεται αὐτῷ ἢ apapTia, εὖ προσ- 
7 A A / ας - ano ? ; 
δράμοι τῇ τοῦ ΚΚαλλίστου σχολῇ" οὗ τῷ ὅρῳ ἀρεσκόμενοι 
Ν al 
πολλοὶ συνείδησιν πεπληγότες, ἅμα τε Kal ὑπὸ πολλῶν 
δ 2 > 4 \ \ \ > \ / 
αἱρέσεων ἀποβληθέντες, τινὲς δὲ Kal ἐπὶ καταγνώσει 
», “ > "A φ > 2 Ὁ“ ‘ / 
ἔκβλητοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν γενόμενοι, προσχωρή- 
15 σαντες αὐτοῖς, ἐπλήθυναν τὸ διδασκαλεῖον αὐτοῦ. 
Οὗτος ἐδογμάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁμάρτοι τι, εἰ 
\ Ν ΄ἷ \ “ / > \ ΄ 
καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, μὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. ᾿Ἐξπὶ τούτου 
BA 3 , Ἁ 4 » / / 
ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι Kal διάκονοι δίγαμοι 
Ν / / > / > \ / » 
καὶ τρίγωμοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους. Εἰ δὲ Kai τις ἐν 
20 κλήοφῳ ὦ in, μέ ὃν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς μὴ 
κλήρῳ ὧν γαμοίη, μένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ᾧ κλήρῳ ὡς μὴ 
ἡμαρτηκότα᾽ ἐπὶ τούτῳ φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
ἀποστόλου ῥηθὲν, ““Σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην ;” 


7. Cod. συγχαρεῖν. 9. “Leg. ὅ τι &y.” Miller. recté. 14. Cod. 
ἔκκλητοι. 20. Cod. ὧν γνώμη. 22. Rom, xiv. 4. 





9. Vide locum Tertulliani infra citandum, et que adnotavit doc- 
tissimus Antistes, Joannes Kaye, in Tertullian. p. 239. 257. 

11. Videtur esse queedam antithesis inter Χριστὸς et Κάλλιστος et 
inter Χριστιανὸς et Καλλιστιανός. Christiani, inquit, quantopere 
peccatores, peccatorum suorum reatu scilicet sunt soluti, si modo fiant 
Callistiani ! 

14. ἔκβλητοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας bd ἡμῶν γενόμενοι. Notandum igitur 
nostrum Episcopalem auctoritatem sibi vindicare. 

17..°Em) τούτου, 1, 6. illo Episcopatum obtinente. Vide p. 279. 39. 
τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν de Zephyrino ejusque successore Callisto; et 279. 
30. Ζεφυρίνου διέπειν νομίζοντος τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν, et 284. 78. Κάλλιστος 
θηρώμενος τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς θρόνον, et 288. 96. μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρί- 
νου τελευτὴν νομίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο. 

18. Tertullian. ad Uxor. c. 7, ‘‘disciplina Ecclesiz et przescriptio 
Apostoli-digamos non sinit preesidere.” Vide ad 1 Tim. iii. 2. Tit. i. 
6. De Exhort. Cast. c. 7, “ Quosdam memini Digamos loco dejectos, 


CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 91 


also to gratify men in their lusts, saying that all men’s P. 290 / 
sins were forgiven by himself. For whatever sin any 

one commits who is a member of another man’s con- 
gregation and is called a Christian, his sin (they say) 

is not imputed to him if he runs off to the school of 
Callistus. And many persons being delighted with 

this man’s decree, who were wounded in their con- 
sciences, and had also been thrown off from many 3 
sects, and some cast out of the Church by me after » 
judicial sentence, flocking to them, swelled his school. 

This man promulgated as a dogma, that if a Bishop 
should commit any sin, even if it were a sin unto 
death, he ought not to be deposed. In his time 
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, digamists and triga- 
mists, began to be enrolled in the Clergy. 

And if any one being in the clerical body should 
marry (he determined) that such a person should re- 
main in the clergy as not having sinned, saying that 
the words of the Apostle were spoken with a view to 
this matter: “Who art thou that judgest another 





de suis Montanistis testatur de Pudicit.c. 1. ‘Digamos’ (¢.¢ etiam 
laicos) ‘foris sistimus, ewndem limitem liminis mcechis quoque et 
fornicariis figimus.’ De iis autem quos ipse Psychicos pro suo arbitrio 
vocat, audi exclamantem de Monogam. c. 12. ‘ Quot enim et digami 
president apud vos!’” Digamorum quorundam exempla in nonnullis 
Ecclesiis ad Episcopale fastigium provectorum videas apud Bingham, 
iv. v. § 4. He et cetera Callisti acta sibi tuenda suscepit vir eru- 
ditissimus Ignatius Dollinger, pp. 150—154 ; quo successu viderint alii. 
Equidem in Hippolyti nostri verbis quedam Novatianismi gliscentis 
semina deprehendi minimé infitior: de qua re plura inferius dicturus sum. 

19. εἰς κλήρους : de hac locutione vide Euseb. vi. 43. 

20. Super hac re consulenda egregia doctissimi Henrici Whartoni 
diatribe, De Cleri Calibatu, Lond. 1688. 


92 NARRATIVE 


3 \ \ \ “ / XN ΄ δ 
Αλλὰ καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τούτῳ ἔφη 
” a 
λέγεσθαι: “Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ cite,” 
25 τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ Εἰκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. ᾿Αλλὰ 
an a e 7 
καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁμοίωμα “Ἐκκλησίας ἔφη 
γεγονέναι, ἐν 7 καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες, καὶ 
πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα: οὕτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι 
> ° ’ e / - \ a \ lal Ἁ 9 
ἐν Ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁμοίως" καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν 
P. 291 συνάγειν οὕτως ἡρμήνευσεν, οὗ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἡσθέντες τοῖς 
/ a “ 
δόγμασι διαμένουσιν ἐμπαίζοντες ἑαυτοῖς τε Kal πολλοῖς, 
ὧν τῷ δίδασκαλείῳ συρρέουσιν ὄχλοι. Διὸ καὶ πληθύ- 
, + ee” ” \ By ς \ ἃ > 
νοντῶν γαυριώμενοι ἐπὶ ὄχλοις διὰ Tas ἡδονὰς, ἃς οὐ 
’ ς \ Φ / »>Q\ 
5 συνεχώρησεν ὁ Χριστὸς, ov καταφρονήσαντες οὐδὲν 
ἁμαρτεῖν κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αὐτῷ ἀφιέναι τοῖς 
> lal \ Ν \ \ > / > ΝΜ 
εὐδοκοῦσι" καὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπέτρεψεν εἰ ἄνανδροι 
53 OS ὁ / / >? Ul ς 4 “ > / ἃ 
εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ τε τε καίοντα ἐναξία ἡ ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν ἣν 
ἐ 
24. Matt. xiii. 20. 2. Cod. éumé(ovres. 3. Cod. διδασκαλείων. 
7, 8. “Ἰία hee scripta sunt in codice. Nisi gravior corruptio 
inest, post ἐπέτρεψεν supple ἁμαρτεῖν (scilicet assumendo σύγκοιτον), et 


scrib. ἡλικίᾳ καίοιντο ai ἐν ἀξίᾳ, τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν ἣν (sive potius εἰ) μὴ 
βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν." Miller. 





29. Οὐδ hic vituperat noster, post Hippolyti εἰδίεη, docuerunt 
Catholici Patres; S. Cyprian. de Unit. Eccles. p. 111, et Epist. liv. 
p- 99, Fell. ‘‘Etsi videntur in Ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen 
impediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania in 
Ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesia recedamus. Nobis tantummodo 
laborandum est, ut /rwmentum esse possimus.” Fulgent. de fide, ad 
Petrum, c. 42, et S. Aug. Epist. cv. 16. ‘“ Ecclesiam Catholicam 
agrum suum Dominus docet tanquam zizania inter triticum.” S. Aug. 
c. Faust. lib. xii. 15. “Cuncta animalium genera in Arcé clauduntur. 
Sicut in Ecclesize sacramentis et boni et mali versantur.” Sed venia 
detur Hippolyto nostro alia rigidius statuenti. Illi enim nondum, 
cum heec scriberet, contigerat videre que posted deliraverunt Novatiani 
et ‘pars Donati.’ Sed ‘‘oportebat hereses esse, ut probati essent 
manifesti.” Oportebat schismata oriri, ut disciplinze Christianz leges 
melius dispungerentur, et ut veritas “de permixta Ecclesia” a Catharis 


CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME, 93 


man’s servant?” (Rom. xiv. 4;) and he said that the 
parable of the tares was spoken with reference to him: 
“Let the tares grow together with the wheat” (Matt. 
xii. 30), that is, let sinners remain in the Church. 
Besides, he said that the Ark of Noah was made for. 
a figure of the Church, and that in it were dogs and 
wolves and ravens, and all clean things and unclean ; 
affirming that it ought to be likewise so in the Church. 
As many passages for this purpose as he was able p, 291 
to collect he expounded inthis manner; and his 
disciples being pleased with his doctrines remain, 
deluding themselves and others, and crowds flock to 
their school. Hence they are increased, vaunting 
their multitudes, on account of pleasures which Christ 
did not permit, and in despite of Him they restrain 
from no sin, professing that they themselves forgive 
the sins of their own votaries. For he also gave 
permission to women, if they had no husband, and 
were enamoured of a comrade unworthy of them- 





in dubium vocata, piis Sanctorum Episcoporum, Cypriani, Optati, 
et preecipué Augustini laboribus feliciter vindicaretur, et in perpetuum 
solidaretur. Interea fas sit monuisse, hc et plurima similia, que 
lector paulld attentior ipse per se animadvertet, luculenta afferre testimonia 
quibus hujusce libri αὐθεντία et γνησιότης corroborentur. Cezeterum his 
placitis Novatianismum redolentibus renuntiasse postea nostrum et 
saniora docuisse infra videbimus. Vide Capp. ix. et x. 

6. Cod. αὐτῷ. Legendum videtur αὐτοὶ, vide supra p. 290. 32. 

8. Sic Cod. Legit Bunsenius, i. p. 134. καὶ yap καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐν ἀξίᾳ 
ἐπέτρεψεν εἰ ἄνανδροι εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ γε ἐκκαίοιιτο, τηρεῖν ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν 
ἣν μὴ βούλοιντο καθαίρειν. Audaciusculé. Sed in loco salebroso 
dandum aliquid licentiz. Age, nos quoque symbolam afferamus. 
Locum integrum sic repreesentandum conjecerim, καὶ yap καὶ γυναιξὶν 
ἐπέτρεψεν, εἰ ἄνανδροι elev, καὶ ἡλικιώτῃ τινὶ καίοιντο ἀναξίῳ, ἢ ἑαυτῶν 


Io 


15 


20 


94 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


\ 4 a 
μὴ βούλοιντο καθαίρειν. Διὰ τοῦτο νομίμως γαμηθῆναι 
, , 
ἔχει ἕνα ὃν ἂν αἱρήσωνται σύγκοιτον, εἴτε οἰκέτην, εἴτε 
2, 40 ὶ r / > \ > ὃ \ \ , 
ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοῦτον κρίνειν ἀντὶὲ ἀνδρὸς μὴ νόμῳ 
4 ” δ > a , ae ΄ 
γεγαμημένην. "ἔνθεν ἤρξαντο ἐπιχειρεῖν πισταὶ λεγό- 
a \ \ 
μεναι ἀτοκίᾳ περιδεσμεῖσθαι καὶ φαρμάκοις πρὸς τὸ τὰ 
συλλαμβανόμενα . καταβάλλειν, διὰ τὸ μήτε ἐκ δούλου 
7 » ΄ ΄ 2 ᾽ ταν \ \ , 
βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τέκνον, μήτε ἐξ εὐτελοῦς διὰ τὴν συγγέ- 
νείαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν. 
ε Qn > “ > , > ’ Φ ΨὋὦ' / 
Ορᾶτε eis ὅσην ἀσέβειαν ἐχώρησεν ὁ ἄνομος μοιχείαν 
\ ΄ ᾽ n ἢ . Ὁ , 5 ‘aN , a 
καὶ φόνον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ διδάσκων" καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς 
/ ς \ e > / \ 
τολμήμασιν éavTovs οἱ ἀπηρυθριασμένοι καθολικὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκαλεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσι, καί τινες νομίζοντες εὖ 
πράττειν συντρέχουσιν αὐτοῖς. "Emi τούτου πρώτως 
τετόλμηται δεύτερον αὐτοῖς βάπτισμα. 
Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Κάλλιστος συν- 
εστήσατο, οὗ διαμένει τὸ διδασκαλεῖον φυλάσσον τὰ ἔθη. 


12. Cod. ἤρξατο. 19. Cod. τολμήσασιν. ib. Cod. ἄπερυθρ. 
22. Literze όλμ in codice exesz. ib. Cod. βάπτησμα. 





ἀξίαν μὴ βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν, διὰ τοῦτο νομίμως γαμηθῆναι ἐκείνῳ ὃν dv 
αἱρήσωνται σύγκοιτον. Secundum τε corruptum puto, nam Codex cum 
accentu habet. De καίοιντο ἡλικιώτῃ conferas Horatiana 4 Od. xi. 33. 
‘* calebo foemina ;’ 3 Od. ix. 5. ‘‘non alia arsisti;” Epod. xix. 9. 
‘* arsisse Bathyllo.”” De γαμηθῆναι, 2udbere, vide Lobeck. Phryn. p. 742. 
Iren. v. 9. 7 νύμφη γαμῆσαι οὐ δύναται, γαμηθῆναι δὲ δύναται. 

9. Etiam heec Callisti facinora tueri studet vir doctissimus Ignatius 
Déllinger, pp. 170—184 ; sed, me quidem judice, partim feliciter. 

11. νόμῳ γεγαμημένην. Conferas que in Traditione Apostolicé διὰ 
Ἱππολύτου statuuntur, p. 254. πιστὸς ἐὰν ἔχῃ παλλακὴν, ἐὰν μὲν δούλην, 
παυσάσθω, καὶ νόμῳ γαμείτω, εἰ δὲ ἐλευθέραν, γαμείτω αὐτὴν νόμῳ. 

13. Pro ἀτοκίᾳ legendum videtur ἀτόκια (et sic Codex, quem nunc 
inspexi), 2.6. ligaturas abortum efficientes ; et ante vocem φαρμάκοις sup- 
plendum ἐπιχειρεῖν. 

17. De Episcopo quodam, Romane, ut videtur, Ecclesiz (nomen 
non liquet) similia narrat Tertullianus, jam Montanista, de Pudicitia 


CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 95 


selves, or did not wish to degrade their own dignity, 
that therefore they might lawfully marry any one 
whom they chose as a consort, whether a slave or 
free, and that she who was not married to him 
lawfully, might regard him asa husband. Thence it 
was that women, called believets, began to venture to 
bandage themselves with ligaments to produce abor- 
tion, and to deal with drugs in order to destroy what 
was conceived, because they did not like to have a 
child from a slave or a mean person, on account of 
their kindred, and haughtiness of wealth. 

Behold to what impiety this lawless person pro- 
ceeded, teaching adultery and murder at the same 
time! And yet after all these enormities these men 
are lost to all sense of shame, and presume to call 
themselves a Catholic Church! And some persons 


thinking to fare well resort to them. In his time, , 


first it was dared by them to administer a second 
baptism. 

These things this most admirable Callistus con- 
trived, and his school still survives preserving its 





c. I. ‘* Audio Edictum ‘esse propositum et quidem peremptorium ; 
Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, dicit, Ego et 
mcechiee et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto.” 

22. In ipsam Romanam Ecclesiam iterationem baptismi inductam 
fuisse non asserit noster (quod quidem esset falsissimum, uti ex Stephani 
Episcopi Romani Epistolis ad Sanctum Cyprianum apparet), sed Callisti 
tempore, eoque non obnitente, invasisse Christi Ecclesiam, quod verum 
est, et sub Agrippino Episcopo Africano fieri cceptum est. Vide 
Augustin. de Baptismo, ii, 12 ; Dollinger, p. 191. 

24. οὗ διαμένει---Καλλιστιανοί; et per orbem terrarum diffusam esse, 
dum hec scriberet, testaturnoster. Hinc colligas librum hune confectum 
fuisse, et non paucis annis, post Callisti mortem A.D. 223. 


P. 291 


ee, 
ue, 


96 NARRATIVE 


25 καὶ THY παράδοσιν, μὴ Siaxpivoy τίσι δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, πᾶσιν 
> / ’ \ / Φ > 3 Φ \ \ fal 
ἀκρίτως προσφέρων τὴν κοινωνίαν" ad ov καὶ THY τοῦ 
2.4 , REE! a Θ ὃ \ \ 

P. 292 ὀνόματος μετέσχον ἐπίκλησιν καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸν πρωτο- 
στατήσαντα τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων Κάλλιστον, Καλ- 
λιστιανοί. 

Tovrov κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσμον διηχηθείσης τῆς 

5 διδασκαλίας, ἐνιδὼν τὴν πραγματείαν ἀνὴρ δόλιος καὶ 

¢ ’ lal 
atrovoias γέμων, ᾿Αλκιβιάδης τις καλούμενος, οἰκῶν ἐν 
7A. , an .. U / e \ \ > / 
παμείᾳ τῆς Συρίας, yopyotepov ἑαυτὸν καὶ εὐφυέστερον 
ἐν κυβείαις κρίνας τοῦ ΚΚαλλίστου, ἐπῆλθε τῇ Ῥώμῃ 
φέρων βίβλον τινὰ, φάσκων ταύτην ἀπὸ Σηρῶν τῆς Ilap- 
A. 
10 θίας παρειληφέναι τινὰ ἄνδρα δίκαιον "Hdxacat, ἣν 
4. al Πρ 
παρέδωκε τινὶ λεγομένῳ Σοβιαὶ χρηματισθεῖσαν ὑπὸ 
ἀγγέλου, οὗ τὸ ὕψος σχοινίων Kd ὃ γίνεται μίλια ὃς" 
\ \ ΄ een. , .΄ ἀπ ες δ, ἐὸν > 
τὸ δὲ πλάτος αὐτοῦ σχοινίων ὃ, Kal ἀπὸ ὥὦμου εἰς 
5 ἢ ae \ ‘ ow a a > fie ben 
ὦμον σχοινίων s* τὰ δὲ ixvn τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ 
a oa I 
15 μῆκος σχοίνων γ ἡμίσους" ἃ γίνεται μίλια δεκατέσσαρα" 
‘ \ / / . Se ς / Ν δ Ὁ ς / 
τὸ δὲ πλάτος σχοίνου ἑνὸς ἡμίσους, TO δὲ ὕψος ἡμισχοίνου. 
Εἶναι δὲ σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ θήλειαν, ἧς τὰ μέτρα κατὰ τὰ 
προειρημένα εἶναι λέγει" καὶ τὸν μὲν ἄρσενα υἱὸν εἶναι 
τοῦ θεοῦ, τὴν δὲ θήλειαν καλεῖσθαι ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Ταῦτα 
“ \ 
20 τερατολογῶν, νομίζει, ταράσσειν τοὺς μωροὺς, λέγων 
an > / a 3 , \ 7 
τοῦτον εὐηγγελίσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καινὴν ἀφεσιν 


6. Cod. ἀλκηβιάδης. 9. Cod. ἀποσηρῶν. 20. Cod. 
λέγων, λέγων. λέγων λόγον R. Scott. 





Ceterum notandum est nostrum Callisti gregem Zcclesie nomine 
indignum existimare, et schole tantum in loco habere: que quidem 
clarissimé indicant, ut mihi videtur, Hippolytum in Novatiani partes 
futurum fuisse propensum. Sed de hac re plura alias dicturi sumus. 
Capp. ix. et x. 

25. τίσι δεῖ. Ita Miller; sed δεῖ in Codice non extat. 


CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 97 


practices and its tradition, not making any distinction 

as with whom it is fit to communicate, but offering w 
communion indiscriminately to all, from whom his 
scholars derived their appellation, so as to be called, P. 292 
on account of him who took the lead in these matters, 
—namely, Callistus,—Callistians. 

When his teaching had been noised through the 
whole world, a person full of subtlety and madness, 
called Alcibiades, dwelling in Apamea in Syria, 
deeming himself a more august person, and more 
adroit in jugglery, than Callistus, came to Rome, 
bringing a Book, which he said that a certain just 
man, called Elchasai, had received from the Seres 
of Parthia, which he gave to a certain Sobiai, being 
delivered by an Angel. 





8. Vide Theodoret. Hzret. Fab. ii. 7. Epiphan. Heer. xix. c. 5. 
Ceterum hance Helcesaitarum heresim, non adeo immiutatam, nostra 
zetate recoctam vidimus ab iis qui se Mormonitas appellant, et suam 
ee a Libro quodam portentoso, divinitus dato, hatisisse se pro- 

tentur. 


H 


98 PLAN OF THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ; OR, 


ς lal | oe “ a Ul / \ ΄ 
ἁμαρτιῶν, ἐπὶ Tpaiavod βασιλείας τρίτῳ, καὶ βάπτισμα 
ε, ον a. \ ae ΄ ΄ \ ? , 
ὁρίζει, ὃ καὶ αὐτὰ διηγήσομαι, φάσκων τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ 
> / \ n ‘\ 9 , b] , ᾽ \ 
ἀσελγείᾳ Kal μιασμῷ Kai ἀνομήμασιν ἐμφυρέντας, εἰ καὶ 
\ ΝΜ 3 / \ a / v4 
25 πιστὸς εἴη, ἐπιστρέψαντα Kal τῆς βίβλου κατακούσαντα 
‘ / ς / U 4 »” 
καὶ πιστεύσαντα, ὁρίζει, βαπτίσματι λαμβάνειν ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν. ; 
rn . \ 
Ταῦτα δὲ ἐτόλμησε τεχνάσαι τὰ πανουργήματα ἀπὸ 
a / , > ‘ \ Φ 
τοῦ προειρημένου δόγματος ἀφορμὴν λαβὼν, οὗ παρ- 
3οεστήσατο Κάλλιστος. Ἡδομένους γὰρ κατανοήσας 
\ > \ ΄ 3 / > / ᾽ , 
P.293 πολλοὺς ἐπὶ τοιαύτῃ ἐπαγγελίᾳ εὐκαίρως ἐνόμισεν 
ἐπιχειρεῖν. Kal τούτῳ δὲ ἡμεῖς ἀντιστάντες, οὐκ εἰάσαμεν 
ἐπιπολὺ πλανηθῆναι, πολλοὺς ἐλέγξαντες εἶναι τοῦτο 
πνεύματος νόθου ἐνέργειαν καὶ ἐπίνοιαν πεφυσιωμένης 
5 καρδίας, καὶ τοῦτον λύκου δίκην ἐπεγηγερμένον πλανω- 
μένοις προβάτοις πολλοῖς [ἃ] ἀποπλανῶν διεσκόρπισεν 
ὁ Κάλλιστος. 
309 Δοκεῖ μὲν ἡμῖν ἱκανῶς τὰ πάντων ᾿λλήνων τε καὶ 
βαρβάρων δόγματα ἐκτεθεῖσθαι, μηδὲν δὲ ἀπολελουπέναι 
’ a / / lal e \ “ -“ 
μήτε τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων μήτε τῶν ὑπὸ αἱρετικῶν φ[ασ- 
κο]μένων ἀναπόδεικτον. Οἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐκτεθέντων 
\ , δ ΟΝ x ‘ Ἂ \ 
φανερὸς γεγένηται ὁ ἔλεγχος 7 κλεψιλογησάντων ἢ τινὰ 
5 / b] \ ee Ὁ ἈΝ ὁ 7] 
ἐρανισαμένων αὐτὰ τὰ ὑπὸ Ελλήνων πεπονημένα παρα- 


un 


/ ς al 
θεμένων ws θεῖα. 
Διὰ πάντων οὖν διαδραμόντες καὶ μετὰ πολλοῦ πόνου 


23. Cod. a’r@. 24. Cod. ἀσεγεία. 25. ‘* Vocis πιστὸς literze στο 
exesze. Addendum videtur tis.” Miller. ib. Cod. ἐπιτρέψαντα. 
26. Cod. ἄφεσιν ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. 1. Cod. ἐνόμησεν. 3. Sic 
codex; sed post πολλοὺς distinguendum videtur. ib. Cod. 
ἐλλέγξαντε-. 6. Addidi ἅ. 2. Cod. ἐκτεθῆσθαι. ib. Cod. 
ἀπολελυπέναι. Miller ἀπολελειπέναι. 3. ‘*Literee supplete lacunam 
exacte implent ; supersunt vestigia literarum a et «.”’ Miller. 


REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 99 


These artifices he ventured to contrive, having 
taken occasion from the dogma aforesaid, which 
Callistus adopted. For having perceived that many Ρ. 293 
were pleased with such promises (of indulgence), he 
imagined that he made the attempt at a favourable 
opportunity. And I resisting him did not suffer the 
heresy to spread wide, convincing many that this 
was the working of a spurious spirit, and the imagi- # 
nation of a proud heart, and that he had risen up like 
a wolf to ravage the numerous sheep whom Callistus 
had led astray and scattered. 


The dogmas of the Greeks and Barbarians appear P. 309 
to have been now sufficiently expounded, and we seem 
to have left nothing undeclared, either of Philosophical 
systems, or of the assertions of Heretics, who have 
been clearly convicted, by what has been propounded, 
of having either plagiarized their systems, or of having 
gathered them (like banquets made by contributions) 
from different quarters, and served up things that 
have been prepared by Heathens, as if they were 
divine. 

Having run through all these, and having with much 





3. ἐπιπολὺ πλανηθῆναι. Sic MS, Pro NMAANH@HNAI mallem ΠΛΑ- 
TYN@OHNAI, 2. ¢. laté diffundi, 
H 2 


100 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


lal , 
ἐν ταῖς ἐννέα βίβλοις τὰ πάντα δόγματα ἐξειπόντες, 
na / > 7 > / > / \ / 
10 πᾶσί Te ἀνθρώποις ἐφόδιον ἐν βίῳ μικρὸν καταλιπόντες, 
\ a nr > 5 / a \ / 
καὶ τοῖς παροῦσιν οὐκ ὀλίγοις χαρᾶς καὶ θυμηδίας φιλο- 
2 4 DA e 4 σ΄ \ 
μάθειαν παρασχόντες, εὔλογον ἡγούμεθα ὥσπερ κορυφὴν 
»" \ \ \ 3 / ‘ bi] , \ 
τοῦ παντὸς [τὸν] περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον ἐπενέγκαι, καὶ 
A a “a / ς 
τοῦτον ἐν μιᾷ βίβλῳ τῇ δεκάτῃ περιγράψαι, ὅπως ὁ 
15 ἐντυγχάνων μὴ μόνον ἀνατροπὴν τῶν τετολμηκότων 
πον \ n 
αἱρέσεις συστήσασθαι ἐπυγνοὺς καταφρονήσῃ τῶν 
/ > \ \ Ἁ A > θ Ι ὃ [4 > \ 
ματαίων, ἀλλα καὶ THY τῆς ἀληθείας δυναμιν ἐπύγνοῦς, 
ἀξίως Θεῷ πιστεύσας σωθῆναι δυνηθῇ. 
Lib. X. é Ἷ ἣ ; ‘ ; 
7 / fal , , A 
P.333 Τούτου τοίνυν τοῦ λόγου κρατήσαντες μαθηταὶ 
Ἕλληνες, Αὐγύπτιοι, Χαλδαῖοι καὶ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων 
ἐς » \e 7, ” , > eA 
τί τὸ Θεῖον καὶ ἡ τούτου εὔτακτος δημιουργία παρ᾽ ἡμῶν 
τῶν φίλων τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ μὴ κομπολόγῳ τοῦτο ἠσκηκότων, 
5 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἀληθείας γνώσει καὶ ἀσκήσει σωφροσύνης εἰς 
ἀπόδειξιν αὐτοῦ λόγους ποιουμένων. 
\ 4 nr 
-P 334 Θεὸς εἷς ὁ πρῶτος καὶ povos καὶ ἁπάντων ποιητὴς Kal 


9. Cod, τοῖς. 11. (οά. θυμιδίας. 13. ** Addidi rév.” Miller. 
3. “Post ἡμῶν vel alio loco hujus periodi excidisse videtur ἔλαβον, 
4. Fort. κομπολόγως." Miller. 1. Titulus rubricatus in codice : 
᾿Ωριγένης καὶ ᾿Ωριγένους δόξα. 





10. ἐφόδιον ἐν βίῳ μικρὸν καταλιπόντες. Legendum videtur οὐ μικρόν. 
Vide supra, Philosoph. p. 3, 57. οὐδὲ γὰρ μικράν τινα βοήθειαν τῷ 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίῳ καταλείψομεν. Anne huc respexerit Nicephorus 
Callisti, iv. 31, de Aippolyto scribens, quem reliquisse memorat σύν- 
ταγμα πρὸς πάσας Tas αἱρέσεις βιωφελέστατονν 

11. ὀλίγοις, An legendum ὀλίγης ? 

I. τούτου τοῦ λόγου κρατήσαντες μαθηταὶ Ἕλληνες. Legendum 
μάθετε, ut τεοϊὲ Harius apud Bunsenium. Confer Hippolyti locum 
simillimum in Libro περὶ τοῦ παντὸς, Fabr. i. p. 221. ἃ λελυμένα ὁρῶντες, 
ἀπιστεῖτε, Ἕλληνες, μάθετε μὴ ἀπιστεῖν. 

Czetertim hanc perorationem ad JVationes apprimée Hippolyti personze 
convenire facile agnoveris, qui “ Nationum Episcopus” appellatus 


TO THE HEATHEN. 101 


labour displayed in our Nine Books all their theories, 
and having bequeathed no small viaticum of life to 
men, and having afforded to our contemporaries a 
love of learning, of no slight pleasure and intellectual 
gratification, we deem it reasonable to add, as the 
sum of the whole, a discourse concerning the Truth, 
and to include this in one book the Tenth, so that the 
reader, not only recognizing a Refutation of those who 
have presumed to fabricate Heresies may contemn 
their vanities, but recognizing also the power of Truth, 
may be saved by worthy Faith in God. 

Making yourselves masters of this argument, learn P. 333 
O ye Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldzans, and all the race 
of men, what the Deity is, and what is His well- 
ordered creation, from us the friends of God, not 
handling this matter in sounding speeches, but utter- 
ing our words in the knowledge of truth, and in the 
exercise of sobriety, for the demonstration of Him. 

God, One, the First and only One, and Maker and P. 334 





fuisse, et in Portu Romano, Nationum peregrinarum Emporio, vixisse, 
et Ecclesiam rexisse, videtur. 

3. ἡ τούτου εὔτακτος Syuiovpyia. Vide infra, p. 338. Sic Hip- 
polytus, in ejusdem libri fragmento Barocciano, quod ad calcem hujusce 
voluminis inveniet lector, et quod cum hoc Epilogo libenter comparabit, 
διὰ τῆς τοῦ εὐτάκτου νομοθεσίας. 

4. κομπολόγῳ. Ita Millerus; sed legendum videtur κομψῷ λόγῳ. 
Cp. inf. Ἕλληνες κομψῷ τῷ λόγῳ. 

1. In μᾶς Hippolytea veri enarratione perlustranda meminerit lector 
eam non pro concione ad clerum, imo neque ad populum Christianum 
fuisse enuntiatam, sed Sancti Presulis et Martyris orationem nunc ad 
Ethnicos converti; eam igitur ἐξωτερικοῖς potius quam ἐσωτερικοῖς 
λόγοις venerandi Doctoris esse annumerandam. Quare si qua hic desi- 


108 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS 


wm 


I 


° 


15 


\ > / »” > 

κύριος, σύγχρονον ἔσχεν οὐδὲν, οὐ χάος ἄπειρον, οὐχ 
a \ / \ > lel 

ὕδωρ ἀμέτρητον ἢ γῆν στερρὰν, οὐχὶ ἀέρα πυκνὸν, ov πῦρ 
lal Lal A , 

θερμὸν, od πνεῦμα λεπτὸν, οὐχ οὐρανοῦ μεγάλου κυανέαν 

an A / > / \ 

μορφήν" ἀλλ᾽ ἣν εἷς μόνος ἑαυτῷ, ὃς θελήσας ἐποίησε τὰ 
v 3 ” ’ \ “ a “λ, ral ς 

ὄντα οὐκ ὄντα πρότερον, πλὴν ὅτε ἠθέλησε ποιεῖν ὡς 

a , \ > \ 

ἔμπειρος ὧν τῶν ἐσομένων. ἸΠάρεστι yap αὐτῷ καὶ 

na > / > \ / 

πρόγνωσις, διαφόρους τε τοῖς ἐσομένοις ἀρχὰς πρότερον 
an fal [2 \ nA > ? 

ἐδημιούργει, πῦρ καὶ πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ Kal γῆν, ἐξ ὧν 

al \ \ 4 
διαφόρων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κτίσιν ἐποίει, καὶ TA μὲν, μονοούσια, 
΄ὔ ἴω ‘ 4 

τὰ δὲ, ἐκ δύο, TA δὲ, ἐκ τριῶν, TA δὲ, ἐκ τεσσάρων συν- 

9... 4 > 

εδέσμει. Kal τὰ μὲν ἐξ ἑνὸς, ἀθάνατα jv λύσις yap ov 

n \ ΄ \ \ 

παρακολουθεῖ. To yap ἕν οὐ λυθήσεται πώποτε, TA δὲ 

a \ \ \ ‘N 

ἐκ δύο, ἢ τριῶν, ἢ τεσσάρων, AvTA, διὸ Kal θνητὰ 
> ΄ : 4 lal , ς fal 

ὀνομάζεται. Θάνατος yap τοῦτο κέκληται, ἡ τῶν 

δεδεμένων λύσις. 

ς ἈΝ 5 a a Φ a > / 0 a > 

Ικανὸν οὖν viv τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν ἀποκεκρίσθαι, οἱ εἰ 

φιλομαθήσουσι καὶ τὰς τούτων οὐσίας καὶ τὰς αἰτίας τῆς 


κατὰ πάντα δημιουργίας ἐπιζητήσουσιν, εἴσονται ἐντυ- 





deraveris ad Christiane religionis mysteria, et ad fidei capita disertius 
declaranda, ea a reliquis S. Hippolyti scriptis jam superstitibus colligas, 
quz quamvis laciniosa, et tanquam divitum stragulorum fimbriz, tamen 
ad omnes istiusmodi defectus supplendos abundeé sunt suffectura. 

2. Gemellus locus, quem vide apud Hippol. c. Noétum, ὃ 10, θεὸς 
μόνος ὑπάρχων καὶ μηδὲν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ cbyxpovov, ἐβουλήθη 
κόσμον κτίσαι. 

4. οὐρανοῦ κυανέαν ΜΟΡΦΗΝ. Ita MS. Mallem ΟΡΟΦΗΝ, Jaguear, 
‘*the azure vault,” usu loquendi Hippolyteo, qui poeticas notiones et 
poeticas locutiones sectari solet, ut Irenzei discipulum facile agnoscas. 
Sic coelum dixit οὐράνιον δίσκον Hippolytus in Theophan. p. 261, et 
Theophilus Antiochenus (cujus ad Autolycum libros legisse videtur 
Hippolytus), τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ οὐραν οὔ τρόπον ἐπέχοντα OPOPHS. Sed 
hanc conjecturam jam occupavit vir eruditissimus R. Scott in Censura 
Arnoldiana, p. 541, cujus lucubrationes post heec exarata vidi; et qui 
insuper recte animadvertit hec lyricum colorem prez se ferre, et 
fortasse ab heeretico vel ethnico hymno hausta videri. 


TO THE HEATHEN. 103 


Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself, not P. 334 
infinite Chaos, nor immeasurable Water, nor solid 
Earth, nor thick Air, nor hot Fire, nor subtle Breath, 
nor the azure vault of the vast Sky. But He was 
alone with Himself. He by His Will created the 
things that exist, which did not exist before, but when 
He willed to create them, as having foreknowledge of 
what would be. For Prescience is present with Him. 
He also first created divers Elements for the things 
that were to be, namely, Fire and Air, Water and 
Earth, from which divers elements He formed His 
own Creation; and some things He made of one 
element, some He combined of two, some of three, 
some of four. And those things which are of one 
element are immortal: they have no concomitant 
solubility ; for what is one will never be dissolved. 
But those which are of two elements, or three or four, 
are soluble, and are therefore:called mortal. For this 
is called Death, the solution of what is bound. 

Let then this answer now be given, which will 
suffice for the intelligent, who, if they are desirous of 
further information, and would investigate the essence 
of these things and the causes of the Universal Crea- 





6. Act. xv. 18. 

7. Millerus post ἐσομένων plené interpungit : quod incuria factum 
videtur. Sed rationum, quas mihi prescripsi, memor, nihil mutavi, 
satius ducens sententiam meam interpretatione et notis explicare, quam 
in textum intrudere. 

17. ἱκανὸν οὖν viv τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν ἀποκεκρίσθαι. Ita MS. Vix recte. 
Vel post ἀποκεκρίσθαι adjiciendum δοκεῖ, vel pro ἀποκεκρίσθαι legendum 
videtur ἀποκεκρίσθω. 


104 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS 


20 χόντες ἡμῶν βίβλῳ περιεχούσῃ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς 


25 


Ρ, 335 


οὐσίας" τὸ δὲ νῦν ἱκανὸν εἶναι ἐκθέσθαι τὰς αἰτίας, ἃς οὐ 
a a a , 
γνόντες “EXAnves κομψῷ TO λόγῳ TA μέρη τῆς κτίσεως 
ἐδόξασαν τὸν κτίσαντα ἀγνοήσαντες" ὧν ἀφορμὰς σχόντες 
4 / 

οἱ αἱρεσιάρχαι ὁμοίοις λόγοις τὰ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων προειρημένα 

[4 

μετασχηματίσαντες, αἱρέσεις καταγελάστους συνεστή- 
σαντο. 

\ a 
Οὗτος οὖν μόνος Kal κατὰ πάντων Θεὸς, λόγον πρῶτον 
> ’ὔ 

ἐννοηθεὶς ἀπογεννᾷ οὐ λόγον ὡς φωνὴν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδιάθετον 

“a εἶ ¥ a / 2 ” 2. ὦ $ 

τοῦ παντὸς λογισμόν. Τοῦτον μόνον ἐξ ὄντων ἐγέννα 

Ν \ x 2. 4% ς \ 3 > Φ \ θῃ » 

τὸ γὰρ ὃν, αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἦν, ἐξ οὗ τὸ γεννηθῆναι αἴτιον 

a , ΄ 9 > > - , \ , a 

τοῖς γινομένοις. Λόγος ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ φέρων τὸ θέλειν τοῦ 

a n / ey , 

γεγεννηκότος, οὐκ ἄπειρος τῆς TOD πατρὸς ἐννοίας" ἅμα 

22. Cod. γνῶντες., 24. Cod. τὰ ὑπέκεινα. 4. Cod. γεγενηκότος. 





20. De quo libro (‘‘de Universo”) vide quee dedimus supra, cap. iv., 
et Fabricii Hippolytea, i. p. 220, et ἀποσμάτιον quod Fabricio nondum 
compertum ad finem hujus libri adjicietur. 

21. Supplendum δοκεῖ vel νομίζω. 

24. Eadem locutione utitur noster p. 94. 27, unde forsan hic legendum 
ἀφ᾽ ὧν. Deinde pro ὁμοίοις mallem ἀνομοίοις. 

27. λόγον. Codex habet τὸν λόγον. Conferas Hippolyti nostri locum 
c. Noét. c. 10. θεὸς μόνος ὑπάρχων ἐβουλήθη κόσμον κτίσαι" ὃ κόσμον 
ἐννοηθεὶς θελήσας ἐποίησε. 

28. Theophil. Antioch. p.. 129. πρὸ τοῦ τι γίγνεσθαι Πατὴρ Λόγον 
εἶχε σύμβουλον ἑαυτοῦ Νοῦν ὄντα, ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησε 6 Θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα 
ἐβουλεύσατο τοῦτον τὸν Λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης 
κτίσεως, Novatian. de Trin. 31. ““Ἐδὶ Deus Pater omnium Institutor 
et Creator, solus originem nesciens, unus Deus. Ex quo quando Ipse 
voluit, Sermo Filius natus est, qui #02 in somo percussi aéris aut tono 
coactze de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolate a Deo 
‘virtutis agnoscitur. Hic cum sit genitus a Patre semper est in Patre.’’ 

I. Τοῦτον μόνον ἐξ ὄντων éyévva. Quee quidem verba vertit 
Bunsenius, ‘‘ Him alone of all things He begat,”’ adeoque evidentissi- 
mum nostri de Filii ὁμοουσίῳ testimonium obscuravit. Quod autem dicit 
Hippolytus hoc est: Pater ex zihilo cetera fecit, VERBUM autem ex 
substantia jam existente generavit,—hoc est ex SEIPSO; velut in alio 


TO THE HEATHEN. | 105 


tion, may learn them by referring to my Work, con- 
taining an Essay “Ox the Essence of the Universe.” 
For the present it seems enough to expound the 
causes, which the Gentiles not knowing, with all their 
ornate diction glorified the parts of Creation, being 
ignorant of the Creator. From whom the Heresiarchs 
derived occasions for their Heresies, and having 
travestied their systems in similar words, have com- 
posed Heresies which are ridiculous. 

This One and Supreme God generates the Word 
first in His own mind; He generates the Word, not 
as a Voice, but as the Indwelling Ratiocination of the 
Universe. Him alone He generated of what exists. P. 335 
For the essence of things is the Father Himself, from 
whom is the cause of generation to what is generated. 
The Word was in the Father: The Word, bearing 
the will of Him Who begat the Word, and not uncon- 
scious of His Father’s cogitation. For simultaneously 





loco c. Noét. ὃ 11. πάντα διὰ Λόγου, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος ἐκ Πατρὸς, unde 
clarum lucramur testimonium contra Arianos creaturam ex nihilo factam 
Dei Filium somniantes. Miror doleoque Bunsenium, cujus ingenii 
dotes suspicio, non sine amarulenta quadam irrisione dixisse se minimé 
dubitare, quin orituri sint nonnulli, qui Sanctum Hippolytum de Verbo 
Dei unigenito ὀρθοδόξως sensisse contendant, quorum quidem conatum 
temerarium atque aded frustraneum fore non obscuré innuerit. Sed 
pace viri egregii, ipse sanctum Antistitem perverse intelligendo, ipse 
Sanctum Hippolytum aliquoties perperam interpretando, pzené fecit 
heereticum. Sed salva res est. Non eget Hippolytus defensoribus qui 
ejus ὀρθοδοξίαν propugnent. Absint tantum pravee interpretationes : 
ipse pro se loquatur : ipse se tuebitur. 

4. Hippol. c. Noét. § 10. τῶν γινομένων ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σύμβουλον καὶ 
ἐργάτην ἐγέννα Λόγον, dv Λόγον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἀόρατόν τε ὄντα, τῷ 
κτιζομένῳ κόσμῳ δρατὸν ποιεῖ, ubi Λόγον appellat τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ἴδιον νοῦν, 
αὐτῷ μόνῳ πρότερον ὁρατὸν ὑπάρχοντα. 


106 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS 


5 yap τῷ ἐκ τοῦ γεννήσαντος προελθεῖν πρωτότοκος τούτου 
γενόμενος, φωνὴν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ 
ἐννοηθείσας ἰδέας, ὅθεν κελεύοντος πατρὸς γίνεσθαι 
κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἕν Λόγος ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέσκων Θεῷ. Καὶ 

5. Cod. τὸ ἐκ. 6. Cod. ἔχειν ἐν. 





6. φωνὴν EXEIN ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ (forsan πατρικῷ νῷ) 
ἐννοηθείσας ἰδέας, ὅθεν κελεύοντος Πατρὸς γίνεσθαι κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἕν 
Λόγος ΑΠΕΤΕΛΕΙΤΟ ΑΡΕΣΚΩΝ Θεῷ. Sic Codex, manifesta corruptela. 
Legit Bunsenius φωνὴ pro φωνὴν et sic interpretatur, ‘‘ For when He 
(the Word) came forth from Him, being His First-begotten Speech, 
He had in Himself the ideas conceived by the Father.” Sed jam ipse 
negaverat Hippolytus AOTON esse φωνήν. Liquet, opinor, φωνὴν 
sanum esse, deinde pro EXEIN legendum EXEI, et pro AMETEAEITO 
*APEZKON Θεῷ reponendum ’ATIETEAEI TO ’APESKON Θεῷ. Vel 
potius,—uti nunc inspecto Codice, qui habet ἀπετελειοῦτο ἀρέσκον Θεῷ, 
melius puto,—legere mallem ’AMETEAEI ΤΟΥ͂ΤΟ, ’APESKON Θεῷ (cf. 
Euseb. H. E. i. 2, πατρικαῖς émirdteow ὑπουργῶν) Non enim in his 
dicebant Patres ἀποτελεῖσθαι sed ἀποτελεῖν. Testis ipse Hippolytus in 
simillimo loco, indicio catholicze doctrinze evidentissimo, c. Noét. ὃ 14. 
Πατὴρ μὲν εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὃ vids τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον 
πνεῦμα. Πατὴρ ἐντέλλεται, Λόγος ᾽ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΙ. Hinc S. Irenzei vetus 
interpres, ii. 47, ‘‘ hic mundus factus est apotelestos a Deo.” 

7. κελεύοντος Πατρός. Subordinatur enim Filius Patri tanquam sui 
Auctori et omnium Principio. Ut Fabricii verbis utar (Hippol. ii. 
Pp. 15) mandandi et precipiendi vocabulo de Patre, et obediendi de 
Filio sine ulla offensione usos esse constat non modo azze Concilium 
Niczenum, Clementem, Origenem, Irenzeum, Hippolytum, et alios ; sed 
et fost illud Concilium adversarios et hostes Arianze hzereseos acerrimos, 
Athanasium, Basilium. Vide Petav. de Trin. ii. vii. § 7. Georgii Bull. 
defensionem Fidei Niczenz, p. 133. 165. 170; iv. 2, et in Epilogo 
Operis, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 291. Waterland. iii. p. 319, 320. Meminerit 
lector hac item uti protestatione Nostrum de /i/io omnia Patris jussu 
formante contra heereticorum illorum somnia, qui ab Angelis vel 
<Eonibus omnia facta fuisse impié comminiscerentur, de quibus Irenzeus, 
ii, 55; iv. 37. Vide hic Clem. Alex. Peed. iii. ad fin, Strom. v. c. 13; 
Vii. C. 2. 

Fortasse hic dixerit quis, Hippolytum nostrum VERBI generationem 
facere, quod aiunt, χρονικὴν sive temporariam, non autem sempilernam. 
Quare adolescentes monitos velim, quorum preecipué causa heec com- 
mentatus sum, duas Patrum Ante-niczenorum fuisse quasi familias, de 


TO THE HEATHEN. 107 


with His procession from Him Who begat Him, being P 335 
His First-born, He has as a voice in Himself the ideas 
conceived in His Father’s substance, whence, when 

the Father. bade that what was single (or one by one) 
should become a world, the Word executed it, doing 
what was pleasing to the Father. 





hoc fidei capite specie diversa loquentes, re tamen idem sentientes ; 
quorum alii quidem Generationem Filii manifeste praedicabant @ternam ; 
alii verO ut Justinus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Tertullianus, 
inter quos etiam eminebat noster Hippolytus, quim Deitatem τοῦ Λόγου 
declardssent, eumque ab eterno extitisse in Mente Patris, ἐνδιάθετον 
Πατρὸς Λόγον docuissent, tum verd pergebant dicere Eum iz tempore 
factum fuisse προφορικὸν, et exinde κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν et per συγκατάβασιν 
προπηδῆσαι sive processisse ad Patrem Seseque manifestandum, et ad 
creanda universa. Hanc Ejus mpoéAevow sive processionem ad opus 
Creationis exequendum, aliquoties appellabant Generationem, memores 
illius Yids Mov εἶ Σὺ, Σήμερον TETENNHKA Σέ (Hebr.i. 5 ; Ps. ii. 7). 
Hec Ejus Generatio indubie fuit temporaria. Qui verd, ut Hippolytus 
noster, τὸν Λόγον ab eterno extitisse statuerant, Eum ab eterno fuisse 
genitum agnoverant, ideoque temporariam ejus generationem ad creanda 
universa declarantes, Generationem Ejus Aiternam minimé abnuebant, 
immo vero validissimé adstruebant. Qui enim ex Patre γεννητὸς et 
Patri συναΐδιος, ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ καὶ σύμβουλος, Eum ab eterno 
genitum fuisse satis constabat. Rem optimé expressit nostri feré zequalis 
Novatianus de Trin. 31. ‘‘ Hic (Λόγος) cum sit genitus a Patre semper 
est in Patre, semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum sed natum probem. 
Sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in Patre fuisse dicendus est. 
Nec enim tempus illi zequari potest qui ante tempus est. Semper enim 
in Patre, ne Pater semper non sit Pater. Hic ergo quando Pater voluit, 
processit ex Patre; substantia scilicet illa Divina cujus Nomen est 
VERBUM per quod facta sunt omnia. Omnia post Ipsum sunt, quia 
per Ipsum sunt, et merito Ipse est ante omnia quando per Illum facta 
sunt omnia, qui processit ex Eo Cujus voluntate facta sunt omnia.” 

8. τὸ κατὰ ἕν. Doctissimo Dollingero nequeo adstipulari hec 
ad Platonicum unitatis dogma trahenti. Non enim ait noster τὸ ἕν 
(unum), sed τὸ καθ᾽ ἕν, quod prorsus diversum est: 6 καθεῖς singulus 
significat, sic τὸ καθ᾽ ev unumguodgue singulatim. Vide Novatian. 
de Trin. p.5. ‘Jdeas,? cum Platone, et Clemente Alexandrino et aliis, 
in mente divina extitisse, quasi typicas creaturarum formas, censet noster. 


Io 


15 


20 


108 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ γενέσει πληθύνοντα, ἄρσενα καὶ θήλεα 
? ’ ΝΣ \ Ν e / \ / x 
εἰργάζετο" ὅσα δὲ πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν καὶ λειτουργίαν, ἢ 
BA “Ὁ an \ ὃ x LA BA BA 
ἄρσενα ἢ θηλειῶν μὴ προσδεόμενα, ἢ οὔτε ἄρσενα, οὔτε 
θήλεα. Kai γὰρ αἱ τούτων πρῶται οὐσίαι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων 
γενόμεναι, πῦρ καὶ πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ καὶ γῆ, οὔτε ἄρσενα 
ΕΣ 7 ς / e ΄ 7 an n 
οὔτε θήλεα ὑπάρχειν ἑκάστη τούτων δῦνται προελθεῖν 
ἄρσενα καὶ θήλεα, πλὴν εἰ βούλοιτο ὁ κελεύων Θεὸς ἵνα 
A « “ 
Λόγος ὑπουργῇ. “Ex πυρὸς εἶναι ἀγγέλους ὁμολογῶ, καὶ 
οὐ τούτοις παρεῖναι θηλείας λέγω. “Ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην 
e 
καὶ ἀστέρας ὁμοίως ἐκ πυρὸς Kal πνεύματος, Kal οὔτε 
ἄρσενας οὔτε θηλείας νενόμικα, ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ ζῷα νηκτὰ 
5 / \ Oe coy \ Ἴ 2 ef Ἢ 
εἶναι θέλων καὶ πτηνὰ ἄρσενα καὶ θήλεα' οὕτω γὰρ 
ἐκέλευσεν ὁ θελήσας Θεὸς, γόνιμον εἶναι τὴν ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν. 
ς / > a ς \ \ fa / \ ὃ fal / 
Ομοίως ἐκ γῆς ἑρπετὰ καὶ θηρία καὶ παντοδαπῶν ζώων 
” \ 47 PS Ἀν ἘΠ. 55 , Pers ͵ 
ἄρσενα καὶ θήλεα: οὕτως γὰρ ἐνεδέχετο ἡ τῶν γεγονότων 
φύσις. Ὅσα γὰρ ἠθέλησεν, ἐποίει ὁ Θεός. Ταῦτα λόγῳ 
11. ‘* Medium ἣ delendum videtur.” Miller. 14. ‘* Fort. ὑπάρχει" 


ἑκάστης τούτων δύναται. Aut, si malis, ὑπάρχουσιν οὔτε." Miller. 
16. Cod. ὑπουργεῖ, mutatum in -7. Miller. 





9. ἐπὶ γενέσει Miller. Mallem una voce ἐπιγενέσει, 2. 6. continud 
serie procreationis ; et sic (ut nunc video) Codex. 

ib. ἄρσενα καὶ θήλεα. Sic Miller ; sed Codex habet ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. 

II. 7. 4. mascula tantum szze feminéd; quod propter Millerum 
monuerim delentem ἢ, et propter Bunsenium ejicientem ἢ ἄρσενα. 

13. οὔτε ἄρσενα οὔτε θηλέα ὑπάρχειν ἑκάστη (imo uti credo inspecto 
Codice, ἕκαστα) τούτων δῦνται προελθεῖν ἄρσενα. Sic MS. mendosé. 
Millerus ὑπάρχει. ἑκάστης τούτων δύναται. Preetulerim ὑπάρχει" 
ἕκαστα τούτων δύναται K.T.A. | 

15. Junge εἰ βούλοιτο ἵνα Λόγος ὑπουργῇ. Novatian. de Trin. 31. 
‘¢ Filius nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, nec ex consilio suo facit, nec a se 
venit, sed imperiis paternis omnibus obedit, ut quamvis probet illum 
nativitas Filium, tamen morigera obedientia asserat illum paternz 
voluntatis ex quo est Ministrum, ita quamvis sit et Deus unum tamen 


TO THE HEATHEN. 109 


And some things which were to multiply by suc- P. 335 
cessive generation He made male and female; but 
whatsoever were for ministry and service, He created 
either male, or not needing any female, or neither 
male nor female. For their first elements being pro- 
duced of nothing, such as Fire and Air, Water and 
Earth, are originally neither male nor female, but each 
of these may come forth either male or female, pro- 
vided God, Who bids, so will that the Word should 
minister in making it. I profess that the Angels are 
of Fire, and say that to them there are not females. 
I believe that the Sun and Moon and Stars are like- 
wise of Fire and Breath, and are neither male nor 
female ; believing that swimming and flying animals 
are of water, male and female, for so God commanded, 
Who willed that the moist element should be genera- 
tive. In like manner from the earth are creeping 
things and beasts, and male and female of all kinds of 
creatures, for so the nature of what was born allowed. 
For whatsoever He willed, He made. Hecreated by 





Deum Patrem de obedientia sua ostendit.” Inter recentiores qui hoc 
argumentum tractaverunt satis erit nominasse Bull. Def. Fid. Niczen, 
§ iii. 5. 1, et iii, 8.4. Waterland, vol. i. 2. p. 114. 134—140. 288; 
vol. iii, p. 100, 268—274. 296. ed. Van Mildert. Oxon. 1823, et 
p- 200, 1, de Hippolyto confitente unum Deum in tribus Personis, Patre 
Filio et Spiritu Sancto. 

19. ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ ζῶα νηκτὰ εἶναι θέλων. Sic MS. Bunsenius θέλω, 
sic vertens “1 conceive that from water have come swimming and 
flying animals, male and female.” Confer sup. Philos. p, 258. 77. 
τοῦτον γεγονέναι αὐτὸν θέλουσιν, de Theodoti placitis. 

24. ὅσα γὰρ ἠθέλησεν. Conferas similem Hippolyti nostri locum 
c. Noét. c. 10. (Fabric. ii. p. 13.) ἐποίησεν ὡς ἠθέλησεν, Beds γὰρ ἦν. 


,é 


25 


P. 336 


αι 


10 


110 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


> f. © / \ 7 ΕΥ̓ « ἈΝ 
ἐδημιούργει, ἑτέρως γενέσθαι μὴ δυνάμενα, ἢ ὡς ἐγένετο. 
“Ὅτε δὲ (ἢ) ὡς ἠθέλησε καὶ ἐποίησεν, ὀνόματι καλέσας 
la 
ἐσήμηνεν. 
ΕἸ A ͵7 ‘ / a \ > 
Επὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δημιουργὸν ἐκ 
“ ῇ > “ > 4 - » \ , a 
πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν éoxevacev’ ov θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν 
ἔσφηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον (μὴ πλανῶ), ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Hi 
κι U4 527 a 5 5 ae a “4 
yap θεόν σε ἠθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο ἔχεις τοῦ Λόγου 
\ ΄ x , or , ᾽ ! Α 
τὸ παράδειγμα" ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν 
> \ / \ ‘ / ¢€ if a / 
εἰ δὲ θέλεις Kal θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι, 
\ ΡΣ / a 7 ee | lal lal Ν ς Ν 
καὶ μὴ ἀντίβαινε νῦν, ἵνα ἐπὶ τῷ μικρῷ πιστὸς εὑρεθεὶς 
καὶ τὸ μέγα πιστευθῆναι δυνηθῆς. Τούτου ὁ Adyos 
μόνος ἐξ αὐτοῦ" διὸ καὶ θεὸς, οὐσία ὑπάρχων Θεοῦ. ὋὉ 
ae oF 2 > ri Ne re. 4 2 , \ 
δὲ κόσμος ἐξ οὐδενός" διὸ οὐ θεός" οὗτος ἐπιδέχεται καὶ 
λύσιν ὅτε βούλεται ὁ κτίσας. Ὃ δὲ κτίσας Θεὸς κακὸν 
» > / > Ν a Ἁ \ > ‘ > \ \ ς 
οὐκ ἐποίει οὐδὲ ποιεῖ καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν, ἀγαθὸς γὰρ ὁ 
26. ** Ex preecedentibus male repetitum ἢ quod post ὅτε δὲ legitur.”’ 
Miller. 6. Matt. xxv. 21. 





28. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. c. 33. ὃ δημιουργὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ ἐξοχώτατον 
καὶ παμμεγεθὲς κατὰ διάνοιαν, ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἱεραῖς καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν 
ἔπλασεν τῆς Ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. 

ib. δημιουργόν. Sic Miller. In Codice vox non plené scribitur sed 
compendiosé. δημιδυργῶν recte Bunsenius. 

I. Vide Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48, qui Scriptorem de Natura Universi, 
quem Hippolytum esse vidimus, sic disserentem proponit, δοξάζει συγ- 
κεῖσθαι Tov ἄνθρωπον ἐκ πυρὸς Kal γῆς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἔτι ee πνεύματος, 
hoc est ἐκ πασῶν σύνθετον οὐσιῶν. Pro συνθέτων legit σύνθετον vir 
doctissimus R. Scott. fortasse recté. Simillima habet Hippolytus 
noster c. Noétum, c. 10. 

2. MH ΠΛΑΝΩ, eddem loquendi formula utitur Θουρίου Demonstra- 
tionis de Christo et Antichristo, quem ex indiciis cum extrinsecis tum 
intrinsecis eundem ac nostri hujusce libri Auctorem eumque Sanctum 
Hippolytum, Episcopum Portuensem satis, ut opinor, liquet. Vide 
supra p. 165, sive § 2. vol. i. p. 5. ed. Fabric. ob yap ἐξ ἰδίας δυνάμεως 
ἐφθέγγοντο, (of προφῆται) MH TIAANQ. 

6. ἐπὶ τῷ μικρῷ πιστὸς respicit 5. Luc. xvi. 11. 


ZO THE HEATHEN. 111 


the Word these things, not having a capacity to be 
otherwise than as they were. But when He made 
them as He willed, calling them by name He marked 
them by signs. 

Over these, when fashioning the master of all (man), 
He formed him of all essences blended together. He 
did not fail, desiring to make a god or an angel (be 


not deceived), but a man. For if He had desired to. 


make thee a deity, He could have done so. Thou 
hast the example of the Word. Willing thee a man, 
—He made thee a man. But if thou desirest to 
become even a deity, hearken to Him Who made thee, 
and do not resist Him now, in order that having been 
found faithful in that which is little, thou mayest be 
able to be entrusted also with what is much. The 
Word alone is of God—of God Himself. Wherefore 
He is God, being the Substance of God. But the 
world is of nothing; wherefore it is not God: the 
world is liable to dissolution also, when He wills Who 
created it. But God, Who created it, neither made 
nor doth make evil: He makes what is beautiful and 





7. Λόγος igitur Hippolyto Deus, isque Patri ὁμοούσιος idemque 
συναΐδιος. Czetertim de re ipsa confer Tertullian. c. Prax. c. 5. Sibi 
Filium fecit Sermonem suum, c. Marcion ii. c. 27. Sermonem quem 
ex semet ipso proferendo Filium fecit. 

10. Θεὸς κακὸν οὐκ ἐποίει οὐδὲ ποιεῖ καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν. Sic MS. Bun- 
senius, Θεὸς κακὸν οὐκ ἐποίει: οὐδὲν ἐποίει οὐ καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν. Sed 
leviore negotio res transigenda. Interpunge post ποιεῖ, deinde 
iterandum ποιεῖ, Czetertm his comparari merentur Novatianus de 
Trinitate, cap. I—4, de Deo Mali non auctore, et qui expressisse 
Hippolytum, Hieronymo dicitur auctore, in Hexaémero Ambrosius, 
c. 8. Argumentum, πόθεν τὸ κακὸν, in singulari libello, ut lemmata 
operum statuz dorso inscripta satis docent, ipse tractavit Hippolytus. 


P. 336 


aS 


20 


25 


112 THE AUTIIOR’S ADDRESS 


ς ” a δ 
ποιῶν. Ὃὧ δὲ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ζῷον αὐτεξούσιον ἦν, 
> ” > a " 3 > / Δ)... / \ 
οὐκ ἄρχον, ov νοῦν ἔχον, οὐκ ἐπινοίᾳ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ 
4 « 
ὃ ΄ ΄ [οὶ > \ a \ ΄ » \ 
υνάμει πάντων κρατοῦν, ἀλλὰ δοῦλον καὶ πάντα ἔχον τὰ 
2 ee ee ΄ Roly x \ ᾿ς. a 
ἐναντία" ὃ αὐτεξούσιον ὑπάρχειν, τὸ κακὸν ἐπυγεννᾷ, 
« “L 
2 / > / \ 30. 2Ἀ \ a 
ἐκ συμβεβηκότος ἀποτελούμενον μὲν οὐδὲν, ἐὰν μὴ ποιῇς. 
3 Ν “Ὁ fh \ / \ \ Ν 
Ev γὰρ τῷ θέλειν καὶ νομίζειν τε κακὸν, τὸ κακὸν 
5 [4 > Ἃ » ᾽ 3 n > > 3 / φ 
ὀνομάζεται, οὐκ ὃν ἀπ ἀρχῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιγινόμενον. Οὗ 
> / D4 Ι͂ φ Ν ae / > / > 
αὐτεξουσίου ὄντος, νόμος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ὡρίζετο, οὐ μάτην" οὐ 
\ ‘\ > 4 © δὲ \ θέ ὶ \ \ f 
yap μὴ εἶχεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν τι, 
\ / e / ς , \ ’ r 4 > 
kal νόμος ὡρίζετο. O νόμος yap ἀλόγῳ Cow οὐχ 
\ \ 
ὁρισθήσεται, ἀλλὰ χαλινὸς καὶ μάστιξ, ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ 
ἐντολὴ καὶ πρόστιμον τοῦ ποιεῖν τὸ προστεταγμένον καὶ 
\ a 4 , e / θ ὃ \ ὃ / > ὃ “ ὁ 
μὴ ποιεῖν: τούτῳ νόμος ὡρίσθη διὰ δικαίων ἀνδρῶν 
> / ” ς a \ la) / a. 
ἐπάνωθεν. "Eyyvov ἡμῶν διὰ τοῦ προειρημένου Maivcéws, 
14. Cod. κρατῶν. ib. Cod. ἔχοντα ἐν. 18. ‘* Vox οὗ prorsus 


evanida.” Miller. 22. Cod. μάστιγξ. 25. Cod. Mwicéos, sed 
cum litura. 





12. Magistrum suum 5. Irenzum hic sequi videtur noster, adv. Heer. 
iv. 9. ‘‘Homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis Deo, liber in 
arbitrio factus et suze potestatis ipse 5101 causa est ut aliquando quidem 
frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” Vide et Tertullian. c. Marcion 
ii. 5, 6, quem citavit Grabius. 

13. οὐκ ἄρχον οὐ νοῦν ἔχον οὐκ ἐπινοίᾳ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει πάντων 
κρατοῦν GAAG δοῦλον καὶ πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία. Sic Codex. Bunsenius 
legit οὐκ ἄρχοντα νοῦν ἔχον. Deinde καὶ πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία ita vertit 
““Πανίηρ all sorts of contraries in him.” Partm grammaticé, et contra 
sensum Scriptoris, qui sic videtur ratiocinari: ‘‘ Homo libero arbitrio 
preditus, non tamen dominio supremo donatus est; rationem habuit 
divinitus inditam, non tamen vi rationis omnia potuit moderari, sed servi 
loco positus, et ὃ variis elementis conflatus (vide supra, p. 335) omnes 
contrarietates in se complexus est.” Quare, ut brevi rem precidam, pro 
οὐκ ἄρχον ΟΥ̓ νοῦν ἔχον levissima mutatione corrigendum arbitror οὐκ 
ἄρχον ΟΝ, νοῦν ἔχον;,---- 

14. Similiter Novatianus de Trinitate, p. 3. ‘‘ Liber esse debuerat homo 
ne incongruenter Dei imago serviret, et Lex addenda.” Plané inter 
Hippolytum nostrum et Novatianum commercium quoddam doctrine, 
et disciplinze, intercessisse videtur. 


TO THE HEATHEN. 113 


good, for He Who maketh is good. Man who was P. 336 
born was a creature endued with free will, but not 
dominant; having reason, but not able to govern 
every thing with reason, authority, and power, but 
subordinate, and having all contrarieties in himself. 

He, in having free will, generates evil accidentally, but 

not in any degree taking effect, unless thou doest it. 

For in the volition or cogitation of evil, evil receives 

its name, and does not exist from the beginning, but 

was subsequently generated. 

Man being endued with free will, a Law was given 
him by God ; with good reason ; for if man had not 
the faculty of volition and non-volition, wherefore 
was a Law given? For Law will not be given to an 
irrational creature; buta bitandawhip. But to max 
is given a precept and a penalty, for doing or not 
doing what is commanded. To hima Law was given 
from the: first by the ministry of righteous men. In 





15. τὸ κακὸν ἐπιγεννᾷ, éx συμβεβηκότος. Ita Miller. et Bunsenius, 
sed jungenda videntur ἐπιγεννᾷ- ἐκ συμβεβηκότος. Malum enim non 
directé vel ex necessitate oriri dicit, sed mediaté et quasi per accidens, 
et “" peccatum” (ut cum Augustino loquar) ‘‘non est natura, sed wtiam 
nature.’ uaré sic reddidi. 

17. Preclaré S. Irenzus, iv. 72, ταῦτα πάντα (2. e. dispositiones Dei 
per Legem et Prophetas) τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐπιδείκνυσι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τὸ 
συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀποτρέποντος μὲν τοῦ ἀπειθεῖν αὐτῷ ἀλλὰ μὴ 
βιαζομένου. 

18. οὐ Μ5. εἰ cum Millero reponendum videtur, vel οὗ, dz. 

20. θέλειν τι, καὶ νόμος ὡρίζετο. Sic Miller. Sed partm feliciter. 
Equidem mallem θέλειν, τί καὶ νόμος ὠὡρίζετο; et in Codice (quem 
nunc inspexi) distincté post θέλειν interpungitur, et τί claré legitur; et 
jam video virum doctissimum R. Scott. idem ex conjectura voluisse. 

22. Vide Ps. xxxii. 9. 

23. πρόστιμον. Vide ad Clem. Roman. c. 41. 


114 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


> \ | nr n , ΄ 
ἀνδρὸς εὐλαβοῦς καὶ θεοφιλοῦς, νόμος ὡρίζετο πλήρης 
, \ ὃ vA \ \ ΄ a e 
σεμνότητος καὶ δικαιοσύνης. Ta δὲ πάντα διοικεῖ ὁ 

U ς an ς al 
Λόγος ὁ Θεοῦ, ὁ πρωτόγονος πατρὸς παῖς, ἡ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου 
P. 337 φωσφόρος φωνή" ἔπειτα δίκαιοι ἄνδρες γεγένηνται φίλοι 
Θεοῦ" οὗτοι προφῆται κέκληνται διὰ τὸ προφαίνειν τὰ 
μέλλοντα. Οἷς οὐχ ἑνὸς καιροῦ λόγος ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ διὰ 
πασῶν γενεῶν αἱ τῶν προλεγομένων φωναὶ εὐαπόδεικτοι 
ς παρίσταντο᾽ οὐκ ἐκεῖ μόνον ἡνίκα τοῖς παροῦσιν 
᾽ / > \ \ - nn \ ΕῚ , 

ἀπεκρίναντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ πασῶν γενεῶν τὰ ἐσομενα 
προεφήναντο' ὅτι μὲν τὰ παρῳχημένα λέγοντες, ὑπε- 
μίμνησκον τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα Ta δὲ ἐνεστῶτα δεικνύντες, 
μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ἔπειθον. τὰ δὲ μέλλοντα προλέγοντες, τὸν 

ΔῊΝ αὶ € Ὁ ς lal ‘ fal / > / 
10 KATA ἕνα ἡμῶν ὁρῶντας πρὸ πολλοῦ προειρημένα ἐμφόβους 
καθίστων, προσδοκῶντας καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα. Τοιαύτη ἡ 

1] ἴω 7 9 “ 

καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς πίστις, ὦ πάντες ἄνθρωποι, οὐ κενοῖς ῥήμασι 
πειθομένων, οὐδὲ σχεδιάσμασι καρδίας συναρπαζομένων, 
οὐδὲ πιθανότητε εὐεπείας λόγων θελγομένων, ἀλλὰ 
15 δυνάμει θείᾳ λόγοις λελαλημένοις οὐκ ἀπειθούντων. Καὶ 


11. Cod. καθιστῶν. 





27. Ut preclaré dixit Hippolytus noster, ο. Noét, §§ 11, 12, οὗτος 
(ὁ Λόγος) ἔδωκεν Νόμον καὶ Προφήτας, καὶ δοὺς διὰ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου 
ἠνάγκασεν τούτους φθέγγεσθαι ὅπως τῆς Πατρῴας δυνάμεως τὴν ἂπό- 
πνοιαν λαβόντες τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸ βούλευμα τοῦ Πατρὸς καταγγείλωσιν" 
ἐν τούτοις τοίνυν πολιτευόμενος ὃ Λόγος ἐφθέγγετο πεοὶ ἑαυτοῦ, ἤδη γὰρ 
αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ Κήρυξ ἐγένετο. 

28. Ex Psalmo cx. 3, ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά Se, unde 
citat Hippolytus c. Noét. c. 16. 

3. De Prophetarum veterum officio vide eodem fere dicendi tenore 
disserentem Hippolytum, de Antichristo, § 2, of μακάριοι προφῆται 
ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν ἐγένοντο, ov μόνον TA παρῳχηκότα εἰπόντες, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῶτα καὶ μέλλοντα λέγοντες, ἵνα μὴ μόνον πρόσκαιρος εἶναι ὃ 
προφήτης δειχθῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσαις γενεαῖς προλέγων τὰ μέλλοντα, ὡς 
προφήτης εἶναι νομισθῇ. 


TO THE HEATHEN. 115 


times nearer to our own, a Law full of sanctity ‘and 
justice was given by the instrumentality of that Moses 

who has been already named, a devout man dear to 
God. But the Word of God regulates all things, the 
First-born Son of the Father, the light-bearing Voice 
before the Morning Star. Afterwards just men were P. 337 
born, dear to God, who are called Prophets, because 
they foretold the Future. 

To them came the Word, not of one time only ; 
but through all generations the voices of things 
spoken before were manifestly present, not only in that 
spot when they made replies to those persons who 
resorted to them, but they predicted what would 
happen through all ages. Sometimes uttering what 
was past they reminded mankind ; and displaying the 
present they persuaded men not to be remiss; and 
foretelling the future they inspired us with awe, when 
we saw events each of them long since foretold, and 
thence expected also the future (which was foretold, to 
be fulfilled also). 

Such, O all ye men, is the faith of us who do not 
listen to idle words, nor are carried away by impro- 
visations of the heart, nor bewitched by the beguile- 
ments of eloquent speeches, and do not disobey words 
spoken by divine power. 





5. τοῖς παροῦσιν, z.é. preesentibus, qui eos consulturi adibant. 
Prophetas Veteres cum Oraculis Ethnicorum comparat, que non 
edebant vaticinia sua sponte, sed responsa tantum sciscitantibus dabant. 

7. ὅτι Codex. Mallem éré, cum R. Scott. 

9. τόν. Sic Miller; sed compendiose habet Codex, fortasse τά. 

10. ἕνα. Sic Miller; sed Codex, ut puto, ἕν. Scriptio Codicis 
ad finem libri est intricatissima. : 

Lig 


116 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS’ 


nr ς / 
ταῦτα Θεὸς ἐκέλευε Λόγῳ. “O δὲ Λόγος ἐφθέγγετο 
λέγων, δι’ αὐτῶν ἐπιστρέφων τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ παρακοῆς, 
“ / 
ov Bia ἀνάγκης δουλαγωγῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἑκουσίῳ 
προαιρέσει καλῶν. Τοῦτον τὸν Λόγον ἐν ὑστέροις 
e -“ 
20 ἀπέστελλεν ὁ Ἰ]Πατὴρ οὐκέτι διὰ προφήτου λαλεῖν, οὐ 
σκοτεινῶς κηρυσσόμενον ὑπονοεῖσθαι θέλων, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοψεὶ 
“Ὁ n φ-, & - 
φανερωθῆναι τοῦτον λέγων, ἵνα κόσμος ὁρῶν δυσωπηθῇ 
ἴω > 
οὐκ ἐντελλόμενον διὰ προσώπου προφητῶν, οὐδὲ δι 
ἀγγέλου φοβοῦντα ψυχὴν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν παρόντα τὸν 
25 λελαληκότα. Τοῦτον ὄγνωμεν ἐκ παρθένου σῶμα 
ἀνειληφότα, καὶ τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ καινῆς 
πλάσεως πεφορηκότα, ἐν βίῳ διὰ πάσης ἡλικίας 
3 Qo “ / ς / οι A / On Ν 
ἐληλυνθοτα, Wa πάσῃ ἡλικίᾳ αὕτος νόμος γενηθῇ Kat 
Ν Ν 5, ΜΝ ἴω Ε] , > / 
σκοπὸν τὸν ἴδιον ἄνθρωπον πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιδείξῃ 
\ \ ὃ > > A , <4 \ > / ς Θ \ 
30 παρὼν, καὶ Ov αὐτοῦ ἐλέγξῃ ὅτι μηδὲν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς 
Ν 
P. 338 πονηρόν" καὶ ὡς αὐτεξούσιος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔχων τὸ θέλειν 
\ \ \ θέ ὃ \ nv 3 » ΄ ᾿ e Ἀ 
καὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν δυνατὸς ὧν ἐν ἀμφοτέροις" οὗ τὸν 





18. ἑκουσίῳ MS. ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίαν ἑκουσίῳ προαιρέσει R. Scott, et sic, 
ut nunc vidi, Codex. 

19. Post ὑστέροις supple καιροῖ5.---ἀπέστελλεν. Sic Miller. Codex, 
uti reor, ἀπέσταλκεν ; sed scriptio est ambigua. Mallem ἀπέστειλεν, et 
pro λαλεῖν preetulerim λαλῶν. 

26. τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ καινῆς πλάσεως TIEPOPHKOTA. Sic 
Codex et Bunsen. qui sic vertit, ‘‘to have put on the old man through 
a new formation.” Sed mendam subesse suspicor. Neque enim 
veterem Adamum sumpsit εἰ gessit Christus sine peccato conceptus, sed 
veterem vefinxit et renovavit, ut nos protinus essemus in Eo καινὴ κτίσις, 
vel καινὸν PYPAMA, 1 Cor. v. 7. Videetiam S. Iren. v. 14—16. Neque 
leges loquendi dicere sinunt φορεῖν διὰ πλάσεως. Legere mallem 
TIE6TPAKOTA. Vide inf. v. 3, φυράματος. Φυρᾶν apud LXX et 
Patres Ecclesize passim legitur. Vide Hippol. c. Noét. § 17, καθ᾽ ὃν 
τρόπον ἐκηρύχθη, κατὰ τοῦτον Kal παρὼν ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν ἐκ 
παρθένου καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, Καινὸς ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, τὸ μὲν 
οὐράνιον ἔχων τὸ πατρῷον ὡς Adyos, τὸ δὲ ἐπίγειον ὡς ἐκ παλαιοῦ 
᾿Αδὰμ διὰ παρθένον σαρκούμενος. Vide etiam Scholion Hippolyti in 
Danielem (p. 205, Mai). <Adyov πρωτότοκον ἐκ Θεοῦ. . . . πρωτότοκον 


- ὸ THE HEATHEN. 117 


These things God gave as mandates to the Word, 
and the Word uttered them by His Voice, turning 
man thereby from transgression, not leading him 
captive by the force of necessity, but calling him to 
liberty voluntarily with free choice. This Word the 
Father has sent in the latter days no longer 
by a Prophet ; and not willing that being obscurely 
preached He should only be surmised, but bidding 
Him be manifest face to face, in order that the world 
might reverence Him when it saw Him not giving 
His behests by the person of a Prophet, nor alarming 
the soul by an Angel, but beholding Him Who had 
spoken, present in Person. 

We know that He took a body from a Virgin, 
and fashioned the old man by a new creation, and 
that He passed through every age in life, in order that 
he might be a Law-to every age, and by His presence 
might exhibit His own Manhood as a pattern to all 
men, and thereby (by Himself) might convince man 
that God made nothing evil, and that man is endued P. 338 
with free will, having the power of volition or non- 
volition in himself, and being able to do both. Him 





éx Παρθένου ἵνα τὸν πρωτόπλαστον ᾿Αδὰμ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναπλάσσων δειχθῇ 
Λόγος ἐκ καρδίας (Πατρὸς) πρὸ πάντων γεγενημένος" ἐπιγείων βασιλεὺς ὅτι 
ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐγεννήθη ἀναπλάσσων δι᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν "Addu. LKa- 
dem feré leguntur apud nostrum, de Antichristo, § 26, unde-Scholium 
Vaticanum corrigatur, ἀναπλάσσων δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Addu. Cf..S. ren. 
ν. 6. ‘* Glorificatur Deus in suo plasmate conforme.illud et consequens 
suo Puero adoptans. Per manus enim Patris, id est per Filium et 
Spiritum Sanctum, fit homo secundum similitudinem Dei.” 

27. Hee ab Irenzeo mutuatus est ii. 39, Irenzei errorem devitans «δά 
annum feré quinquagesimum Christi in terris vitam prorogantis. 

2. Codex οὗ τὸν ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι eis μέν. Bené Miller. τοῦτον, 
optimé Bunsenius ἴσμεν, ovimus, pro εἰς μέν. 


118 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS 


” θ 1 Ν a θ᾽ ς a ΄ / 
ἄνθρωπον εἰς μὲν τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φυράματος γεγονέναι. 
> x \ “ a an a 
Et yap μὴ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρξε, μάτην νομοθετεῖ 
5 μιμεῖσθαι τὸν διδάσκαλον. Ei γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
ες / > t > / / \ “ , > Ν Lad 
ἑτέρας ἐτύγχανεν οὐσίας, Ti τὰ ὅμοια κελεύει ἐμοὶ τῷ 
> a / \ lal \ 
ἀσθενεῖ πεφυκότι, Kal πῶς οὗτος ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος ; 
ivf δὲ \ “ >? ec An a \ ΄ 
ἵνα δὲ μὴ ἕτερος παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς νομισθῇ, καὶ κάματον 
δ τ j \ a a 
ὑπέμεινε, καὶ πεινῆν ἠθέλησε, Kal διψῆν οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, 
\ oe a 
10 καὶ ὕπνῳ ἠρέμησε, καὶ πάθει οὐκ ἀντεῖπε, Kal θανάτῳ 
ς Va \ 
ὑπήκουσε, Kal ἀνάστασιν ἐφανέρωσεν, ἀπαρξάμενος ἐν 
lal 4 Ν 
πᾶσι τούτοις τὸν ἴδιον ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα σὺ πάσχων μὴ 
>] fel 3 » 7 “ nm 
ἀθυμῇς, ἀλλ᾽’ ἄνθρωπον σεαυτὸν ὁμολογῶν, προσδοκῶν 
\ \ ΄ 
καὶ σὺ ὃ τούτῳ παρέσχες. 
15 Τοιοῦτος ὁ περὶ τὸ Θεῖον ἀληθὴς λόγος, ὦ ἄνθρωποι 


9. Cod. διψεῖν. 





10. Christum, Dominum Nostrum, humanum Corpus veré sumpsisse 
et humanam animam, ψυχὴν λογικὴν, et splendidissima documenta 
dedisse τῆς ἀνθρωπότητός τε καὶ τῆς θεότητος, eloquentissimé docet 
Hippolytus in nobili ill4 peroratione sermonis sui contra Noéti 
deliramenta, quem integrum feré exscribere operee pretium duxissem, 
nisi plerisque obvium fecisset et notis adorndsset vir sacra eruditione 
non mints quam annis venerabilis M. I. Routh. Eccl. Opusc. i. pp. 48 
—94- 

13. GAA’ ἄνθρωπον σεαυτὸν ὁμολογῶν, προσδοκῶν σὺ ὃ τούτῳ παρέσχε. 
Sic MS. Corrigit Bunsen. προσδοκᾷς καὶ σὺ ὃ τούτῳ πατὴρ παρέσχεν, 
audaciuscula mutatione et ἃ tenore sententiarum aliquantum devia. 
Consolationis fontem indicat Hippolytus in τῇ τοῦ Λόγου ἐνσαρκώσει. 
Suspice, inquit, Incarnatum jam glorificatum. Deinde teipsum aspice. 
Vidisti tuam ipsius carnem, quam ἃ te assumpsit, coelo admotam, imd 
in colo regnantem, Deitate insolubiliter consociatam διὰ παθημάτων 
δεδοξασμένην. Macte, igitur, homo, bono sis animo! Passiones tuz 
terrenze tibi viam sternunt ad gloriam ccelestem ἢ Si compateris Christo, 
cum Christo regnabis. Tu carnem Ei dedisti. Tu carnem ab Eo accipies 
glorize consortem. Vide Irenzeum, v. 32, de hoc argumento disserentem. 
Sed quid cum ἀλλ᾽ faciendum? Est enim ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, ut opinor, 
mendosum. Vide igitur ne pro AAA’ AN@POIION reponendum sit 


TO THE HEATHEN. 119 


we know to have been a Man of the same nature with P. 338 
ourselves. | 

For if He was not of the same nature, He in vain 
exhorts us to imitate our Master. For if that 
Man was of another nature, why does He enjoin the 
same duties on me who am weak? And how then 
can He be good and just? But in order that He 
might be known to be not different from us, He 
underwent toil and consented to feel hunger, and did 
not decline thirst, and rested in sleep, and did not 
refuse His Passion, and became obedient to Death, 
and manifested His Resurrection, having consecrated 
as first fruits in all these things His own manhood, in 
order that when thou sufferest thou mayest not 
despond, acknowledging thyself a man of like nature 
with Christ, and thou also waiting for the appearance 
of what thou gavest to Him. 

Such is the true doctrine concerning the Deity, Ο᾽ 





‘AMAN@POIION, ὦ 4. hominem connaturalem cum Christo Deo. Quare 
sic interpretatus sum. 2 Pet. i. 4. Commentarii vicem expleat Ter- 
tullianus de Resurr. Carnis,c. 51. ‘‘Quum sedeat Jesus ad dextram 
Patris, homo etsi Deus, Adam Novissimus etsi Sermo primarius, idem _ 
tamen et substantid et forma qua ascendit talis etiam descensurus. .. . 
Quemadmodum enim nobis arrhabonem Spiritiis reliquit, ita et ἃ nobss 
arrhabonem carnis accepit, et vexit in ccelum pignus totius summz 
illuc quandoque redigende.’’ Vide et Apostoli cohortationes, Eph. ii. 6. 
Phil. iii. 20, 21. Col. iii. r—4. Tit. ii. 13. 

15. Hanc Sancti Antistitis παραίνεσιν non ad fideles esse directam, 
sed ad Christianis mysteriis nondum initiatos, jam supra monuimus. 
Quare ne expectet lector que cum ἀμνήτοις communicari non licebat. 
Ne, inquam, requirat disertam et specialem Christiane veritatis arti- 
culorum enarrationem. Vertm enimverd recordetur, plura in animo 
habere Hippolytum, quam quz palam ore proferat. Has igitur 
Preesulis venerandi sententias interpretari non aliter possit quis, quam 


120 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS 


“Ἑλληνές te καὶ βάρβαροι, Χαλδαῖοί ε καὶ ᾿Ασσύριοι, 
Αἰγύπτιοί τε καὶ Λίβυες, Ἰνδοί τε καὶ Αἰθίοπες, Κελτοί 
τε καὶ οἱ στρατηγοῦντες Λατῖνοι, πάντες τε οἱ τὴν 
Εὐρώπην ᾿Ασίαν τε καὶ Λιβύην κατοικοῦντες, οἷς 
20 σύμβουλος ἐγὼ γίνομαι, φιλανθρώπον Λόγου ὑπάρχων 
μαθητὴξ καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, ὅπως προσδραμόντες 
διδαχθῆτε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τίς ὁ ὄντως Θεὸς καὶ ἡ τούτου 
εὔτακτος δημιουργία, μὴ προσέχοντες σοφίσμασιν ἐν- 
τέχνων λόγων, μηδὲ ματαίοις ἐπαγγελίαις κλεψιλόγων 
25 αἱρετικῶν, GAN ἀληθείας ἀκόμπου ἁπλότητι σεμνῇ, SL 
ἧς ἐπυγνώσεως ἐκφεύξεσθε ἐπερχομένην πυρὸς κρίσεως 
ἀπειλὴν, καὶ ταρτάρου ἕοφερὸν ὄμμα ἀφώτιστον, ὑπὸ 
Λόγου φωνῆς μὴ καταλαμφθὲν, καὶ βρασμὸν ἀεννάου 
P. 339 λίμνης γεννήτορος φλογὸς, καὶ ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων 
κολαστῶν ὄμμα ἀεὶ μένον ἐν ἀπειλῇ, καὶ σκώληκα σώματος 


26. Cod. ἐκφεύξεσθαι. 27. Cod. ζωφερόν. 28. Cod. κατα- 
λαμφέν. 1. Cod. γεννήῆτρος sine accentu. 2. Cod. μένων. 





oculo intenté fixo in arcana Christiane fidei mysteria. Quod ideo 
monendum duxi, quia quam hic labi proclive sit, monstravit in his 
Anglicé reddendis (i. 185—192) vir eruditus de quo jam verba feci- 
mus. 

24. κλεψιλόγων αἱρετικῶν, ‘* of delusive heretics,” Bunsen. Sed vide 
Philos. p. 5. 3, et p. 92, 91, ubi eandem vocem (xAewiAoyos) usurpat 
Noster, qua heereticos plagii reos agat, utpote placita sua 4 Philosophis 
Ethnicis suffuratos. Cp. supra, p. 98, 1. 5. 

27. taptdpov, Hanc Ethnicis familiarem vocem quasi consecraverat 
Apostolus, 2 Pet. ii. 4, σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας. Preiverant LXX 
Interpretes, modo sana sit lectio, Hiob. xl. 15; xli. 24. 

28. His similia habet Hippolytus noster in libro ‘‘contra Platonem 
de Universo” (vide titulum libri in statua Hippolyti) apud Fabric. 
Ῥ. 220, Lagarde p. 68. 8 gins τόπος ἐστὶν χωρίον ὑπόγειον ἐν ᾧ pds 
κόσμου οὐκ ἐπιλάμπει" φωτὸς τοίνυν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χωρίῳ μὴ κατα- 
λάμποντοξΞ κ.τ.λ. ᾿ 

ib. ἀεννάου. Lege ἄενάου. 


TO THE HEATHEN. 121 


ye Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldzans and Assyrians, 
“Egyptians and Africans, Indians and A®thiopians, 
Celts and ye army-leading Latins, and all ye that 
dwell in Europe, Asia, and Africa, whom I exhort, 
being a disciple of the man-loving Word, and a lover 
of men, come ye and learn from us, who is the Very 
God, and what is His well-ordered workmanship, not 
giving heed to the sophistry of artificial speeches, or 
the vain professions of plagiarist heretics, but to the 
venerable simplicity of modest Truth, by a knowledge 
of which ye will escape the coming malediction of the 
Judgment of fire, and:the dark and rayless aspect of 
tartarus, not irradiated by the voice of the Word, and 
the surge of the generating flame of the everflowing lake, 
and the eye of tartarean avenging Angels ever fixed Ρ. 339 
in malediction, and the worm the scum of the body, 





2. ἀεὶ μένον Miller. Codex μένων. 

ib. Lectionem Codicis, quam dedi, Bunsenius ita refingit σκώληκα 
ἀπαύστως ἐπιστρεφόμενον ἐπὶ τὸ ἐκβράσαν σῶμα ws ἐπὶ τροφὴν, que sic 
vertit, ‘‘ the worm which winds itself without rest round the mouldering 
body to feed upon it;? comparari jubens que scripsit 5. Hippolytus 
noster de Universo, i. 221. 24, ed. Fabr. σκώληξ ἀπαύστῳ ὀδύνῃ ἐκ 
σώματος ἐκβμάσσων: Hippolytus vermem illum ἀτελεύτητον humani 
corporis peccato obnoxii et vitiis inquinati naturalem quendam foetum, 
emanationem, ebullitionem, et quasi despumationem a corrupto fonte 
scaturientem et gurgitantem cogitare videtur. Quaré sanissima est 
lectio vulgata ἀπουσίαν. ᾿Απουσία enim, (excrement) vox medicis usitata, 
rem denotat ab ipsa substantia (ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας) profluentem, ἀποῤῥο- 
ὴν, ἀποσπερματισμὸν, quo sensu utitur voce ἀπουσία S. Petr. Alex. ap. 
Routh. Rel. Sac. i. 47. Hinc in vetusto Glossario apud Labbeum 
᾿Απουσία Detrimentum. Czetera proclivia sunt. Pro ἐπιστρέφων mallem 
émitpépov. Simili feré sensu οὐσίαν dixit Noster in opere ‘‘de 
Universo ’—(éav ἐκβρασσομένη οὐσία, p. 222, ed. Fabr. Minucius 
Felix, § 35, de igne gehenne disserens: ‘‘Illic sapiens ignis membra 


122 77 AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


2 / > 4 pee," \ > ΄ a e 
ἀπουσίαν, ἐπιστρεφόμενον ἐπὶ τὸ ἐκβράσαν σῶμα ὡς 
ἐπιστρέφων. Kali ταῦτα μὲν ἐκφεύξῃ, Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα 


5 διδαχθεὶς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἅμα 


Io 


ψυχῇ βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ 
b] / / > \ ” Ἀν \ “Ὁ 
ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνοὺς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁμιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ 
, lal > > / Xx 7 ‘ 
συγκληρονόμος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυμίαις ἢ πάθεσι καὶ 
, 7 / \ , . “ Ν e ῇ 
νόσοις δουλούμενος. Τέγονας γὰρ θεὸς" ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέ- 
, ” xX “ “ “ v ᾿ς ἈΝ 
μεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὧν, ταῦτα δίδου ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἷς 
ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται 
ρ (; ρεχ NYY 
Θεὸς, ὅτε θεοποιηθῆς, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ 
Γνῶθι σεαυτὸν, ἐπιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τῷ γὰρ 
13. Cod. τὸ γάρ. 





urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes fulminum corpora tangunt, nec 
absumunt — peenale illud incendium inexesé corporum laceratione 
nutritur.”” Comparari possunt que in re diversa scripsit S. Clemens 
Romanus, i. 25. σηπομένης σαρκὸς σκώληξ τις γεννᾶται (tanquam 
ἀπουσία) ὃς ἐκ τῆς ἰκμάδος τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ζῴου ἄἀνατρεφόμενος 
πτεροφυεῖ. 

5. Vide Hippolytum nostrum de Resurrectione et Incorruptione, ap. 
Anast. Sinait. in Hodeg. p. 356. Hippol. ed. Fabr. i. p. 244, et 
oratoria vi et pulchritudine insignem et lectu sané dignissimam Homi- 
liam Hippolyti nostri de Baptismo in Theophania, p. 264. ὃ θεὸς 
ἀναγεννήσας (ἡμᾶ5) πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν ψυχῆς τε kal σώματος (lavacro 
baptismi) ἐνεφύσησεν ἡμῖν πνεῦμα ζωῆς. 

8. 2 Pet. i. 4. 

9. Dixerant jam Apostoli, homines, Christi corpore insitos, Θείας 
φύσεως εἶναι κοινωνούς. Vide 1 Pet. i. 23; 2 Pet. i. 4; Ephes. i. 10; 
I Joh. iii. 9, et similia ex Psalmo lxxxii. 6, traducta vero Gnostico 
tribuit Clemens, Strom. vi. p. 816. δυνατὸν τὸν γνωστικὸν ἤδη γενέσ- 
θαι Θεόν. “Ἐγὼ εἶπα ΘΕΟΙ ἜΣΤΕ, καὶ υἱοὶ γψίστου, τοὺς ἀναγνόντας 
αὐτὸν υἱοὺς ἀναγορεύει καὶ Oeods,” et Pad. 1. 8. Strom. vii. 3; 
vii. 10. Similiter Origen. in 5. Joann. t. xii. ὃ 3. Similiter etiam 
5. Irenzeus, iv. 75. ‘Non ab initio Dei facti sumus, sed primd 
quidem homines tunc vero DEI,” et v. 2. 

10. δίδου. Sic MS. Bunsen. ἐδίδου, vertens ‘* He gave them to thee.” 
Pro AIAOY fortasse legendum AIA ΣΟΥ͂, ‘‘ per tetpsum sunt.” Vel, 
que lectio ad compendiosam Codicis scriptionem propius accedere 


TO THE HEATHEN. 123 


turning to the Body that foamed it forth, as to that P. 339 
which nourisheth it. 

. These things you will escape, if you learn to know 
the true God, and you will have your body immortal 
and incorruptible, together with your soul; you will 
receive the kingdom of heaven, you who have lived 
on earth, and have known the King of Heaven; and 
you will hold converse with God, and be a coheir with 
Christ, not being enslaved by lust, or passion, or 
disease. For you have been divinized. Whatsoever 
sufferings you have endured, these are through your- 
self, because you are a man; but whatsoever belongeth 
to God, this God has promised to bestow on you, 
because you have been divinized, having become 
immortal. 

This is the precept, “ Know thyself ;”—to know God 
Who made thee. For the knowledge of himself to 





videtur, ταῦτα AT ἸΔΙΟΥ͂, ‘‘ these things are through your own proper 
Saf.” 

12. ὅτε θεοποιηθῇς. Ita Cod. Bunsenius scribit ὅταν θεοποιηθῇς, 
reddens ‘‘when thou shalt be deified,” sed supra dixerat γέγονας Θεός. 
Legendum igitur videtur ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, et sic R. Scott. 

ib. γέγονας Θεός, ἀθάνατος γενηθείς. Ad heec recté intelligenda 
meminerit lector Hippolytum nostrum docere πηγὴν ἀθανασίας sive 
fontem immortalitatis esse fidelibus et obedientibus Sanctum Baptismum. 
Vide simillimum locum, qui commentarii instar erit, Hippol. Homil. in 
Theophania, i. 264, ed. Fabric. εἰ ody ἀθάνατος γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, 
ἔσται καὶ Θεός" εἰ δὲ Θεὸς δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μετὰ THY τῆς 
κολυμβήθρας (baptisterii) ἀναγέννησιν, εὑρίσκεται καὶ συγκληρονόμος 
Χριστοῦ μετὰ Thy ex νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν. Vide 5. Iren. v. 8; v. 12. 

13. τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτὸν ἐπιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν" τὸ γὰρ 
ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν, ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συμβέβηκε τῷ καλουμένῳ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 
Sic MS. teste Millero. Sed lectio ἐπιγνοὺς incertissima est, imd ex 
Codicis tortuosissimis elementis expiscari videbar ἐπιγνῶναι. Deinde pro 


124 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 


a a / fal 

ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν, ἐπυγνωσθῆναι συμβέβηκε TE καλου- 

, δ. ΟΡ > a 

15 μένῳ UT AUTOU. 
“Ὁ ΝΜ \ ‘ 
Μὴ φιλεχθήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, μηδὲ τὸ 
lal οἷ "ἢ 3 ς A 
παλινδρομεῖν Suctaonte Χριστὸς yap ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ 





τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι Millerus τῷ y. ἐξ Dicere videtur Noster, hominem 
pervenire ad notitiam sui ipsius per notitiam Dei. Quaré sana videtur 
Codicis lectio, sed distinctione mutata explicanda, τὸ yap ἐπιγνῶναι 
ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι, συμβέβηκε τῷ K. ὑ. α. 

16. μὴ φίλεχθήσητε MS. quod Greecum esse negat Bunsenius, qui 
φιλεχθρήσητε legi jubet, sed ἔχθος non mints legitur quam ἔχθρα : et 
φιλεχθὴς non minis quam φίλεχθρος, quare nihil muto. 

ib. μηδὲ παλινδρομεῖν διστάσητε. Vertit Bunsenius ‘* Doubt not that 
you will exist again.” Mira sané interpretatio. Quod quidem viri 
clarissimi παρόραμα inter alia quibus Bunsenii paginz scatent, minimé 
commemorassem, nisi eum fundamenta fidei, ut mihi quidem videtur, 
labefactantem, et doctissimorum virorum, et nominatim venerandorum 
Antistitum, Joannis Pearson Cestriensis et Georgii Bull Menevensis 
bonam famam dedité opera ledentem non sine magno dolore vidissem. 
Sed hoc piis eorum animabus, hoc causz veritatis, hoc juventuti 
preesertim nostree Academicz debebatur officium, ut quanti sit facienda 
Bunsenii ipsius auctoritas, probe perspiciant, et ne ejus effatis commoti 
maximorum Angliz theologorum nomina venerari dediscant. Sed de 
Nostri sensu videamus. MHippolytus, ut Portfis Romani, civitatis 
maritime et commercio dedite, Episcopus, locutiones ἃ re nautica 
desumptas sectari videtur ; id quod in hoc loco factum vides. Παλιν- 
δρομεῖν enim dicitur de eo qui procella in mari aperto subitd deprensus, 
in portum, ex quo in altum imprudentils provectus est, se illicd recipere 
nititur. Hine, “0 guid agis? fortiter occupa Portum;’ ipse sibi 
succinit, et ‘* nunc iterare cursus Cogor relictos,” hoc est παλινδρομεῖν, 
sive ut se ipsum interpretatur noster, Philos. p. 81. ἀφροσύνην τῶν 
πειθομένων κατηγορήσαντες πείσομεν παλιν δρομεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν THs ἀληθείας 
εὔδιον λιμένα. Vide p. 224, 29. ἐχρῆν τοὺς ἀκροατὰς παραπλεῖν ἐπιζη- 
τοῦντας τὸν εὔδιον λιμένα, ubi pro ΠΡΑΞΕΩΝ θηρῶν lege ΠΑΡΑΞΕΝΩΝ 
θηρῶν, monstrosarum ferarum. Cf. p. 81, et de παλινδρομεῖν Origen. 
c. Cels, ii. 12, Theodoret., iv. 1222. παλινδρομῆσαι πρὸς ἡσυχίαν. 

17. Hoc quoque 5, Hippolyti testimonium de Christo Deo corrupit 
Bunsenius, legendum edicens, Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστὶν ῳ ὃ κατὰ πάντων Θεὸς 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προσέταξε, neque enim dixisse 
potuisse Hippolytum, ait Bunsenius, ‘‘ Christus jussit homines abluere 


TO THE HEATHEN. 125 


have been known by God, is the lot of him who is 
called by Him. | 

Do not therefore cherish enmity with one another, 
ye men, nor hesitate to retrace your course. 

For CHRIST is the GOD Who is over all, Who com- 





peccata.” Quare hanc esse sententiam Hippolyti statuit Bunsenius: 
“* Christ is he whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins 
of mankind, renewing the old man.” Nollem factum. Primum 
enim quidni dixerit Hippolytus Χριστὸν εἶναι κατὰ πάντων Θεὸν, quim 
in plurimis aliis locis Christum Deum preedicaverit, et cium id ipsum 
predicantem Sanctum Paulum legerat (Rom. ix. 25)? Legerat item 
Hippolytus quae de hac re scripserat Irenzeus, iii. 17. ‘‘In principio 
Verbum existens apud Deum, per Quem omnia facta sunt, Quiet semper 
aderat generi humano et Hunc in novissimis temporibus passibilem;” sic 
iii. 18. ‘‘Ipse Deus et Dominus et Unigenitus Rex AZternus et Verbum 
incarnatum, preedicatur 4 prophetis omnibus et Apostolis.” Quin et 
ipse dixerat Hippolytus apud Theodoret. Dialog. ii. p. 88. C. τὸ πάσχα 
ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστὸς ὃ Θεός. Deinde quidni affirmaverit 
Hippolytus Christum jussisse homines abluere peccata, quum Christus 
Baptismum instituerit, ut esset λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας (Ep. Tit. iii. 5) 
et quum Idem Apostolos ad baptizandas omnes nationes legatos Suos 
per orbem terrarum miserit, et omnes baptizari jusserit ἢ quapropter 
his ipsis verbis, quee sine dubio respexit Hippolytus, usi sunt primores 
Evangelii Przedicatores, quum ad baptismum recipiendum Christi 
nomine invitarent, (Acta Apost. xxii. 16,) ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ 
ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, ἐπικαλεσάμενος Td ὄνομα κυρίου. Quare 
ipse Hippolytus alio loco sic scripsit, de Antichristo, § 3. εἷς 6 Θεοῦ 
παῖς 80 οὗ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος avayévynow. 
Sic etiam Hippolytus noster contra Noétum, § 6, ubi notandum citare 
eum, ad Christi Deitatem adstruendam Apostoli verba Rom. ix. 5. 
Χριστὺς---ὁ dv ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Quod 
autem ἃ Bunsenio (i. p. 340) video allegatum, Hippolytum in ἄπο- 
σπασματίῳ quodam a Cardinali Mai (Collect. Vat. i. P. ii. p. 205) 
nuper edito, Patrem vocare Christi δεσπότην id ab hac re est sané alie- 
num, ut quod maximée. Ibi enim Hippolytus enarrans vaticinium 
Danielis, vii. 13, loquitur de Christo Filio Hominis, ut ibidem dudum 
monuit ipse Cardinalis Angelus Mai, minimé autem de Verbo Patris 
ὁμοουσίῳ. Quaré huc illa Hippolyti verba non erant violenter trahenda. 


De Hippolyti doctrina in hoc fidei articulo satis jamdudum dixerat vir 


P. 339 


126 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 
\ , 
πάντων Θεὸς, ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν 
προσέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα 
lal na [4 \ > \ b] 
τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπι- 
4 
δεικνύμενος στοργὴν, οὗ προστάγμασιν ὑπακούσας 


21. (οά. οὐ προστάγμασιν. 





eruditissimus Daniel Waterland, Vol. iii. pp. 41. 105, ed. Van Mildert, 
(A Second Defence of some Queries, Qu. ii.,) cujus verba candido 
lectori attentils consideranda liceat commendare. Sarta igitur et tecta 
manet Codicis Parisini lectio, Bunsenii rationibus inconcussa; et 
nobilissimum affert catholicee veritatis contra hzereticos neotericos, sive 
Socini asseclz sint, sive Baptismi efficaciam in dubium vocantes, 
testimonium. 

Rem fortasse non injucundam lectori fecero, si alium Hippolyti 
locum huc apprimé facientem, mantissze loco, subjecero. Quod quidem 
facio lubentiiis, quia emendatricem manum adhuc expectare videtur. 
Fervidioris animi ingenio frena dans, et Asiatico more exultans, 
Ecclesiam Navi comparat Hippolytus, mundi, tanquam Oceani, fluctus 
sulcanti. Ipsum audiamus ; (De Antichristo, ὃ 59,) θάλασσά ἐστιν ὃ 
Κόσμος, ἐν @ 7 ἜΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ, ὡς Nais ἐν Πελάγει, χειμάζεται μὲν, GAA’ 
οὐκ ἀπόλλυται: ἔχει μὲν γὰρ μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς τὸν ἔμπειρον κυβερνήτην 
ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ (nihil adhuc de Petro Ecclesize clavum tenente), φέρει δὲ ἐν 
μέσῳ καὶ τὸ τροπαῖον κατὰ τοῦ θανάτου, ὩΣ TON σταυρὸν τοῦ Κυρίου 
βαστάζουσα. Ubi pro XS ΤΟΝ legendum conjecerim ἽΣΤΟΝ, 2. 6. ferens 
Crucem Domini quasi navis MALUM; Ἐστὶ γὰρ αὐτῆς mpapa μὲν 7 
ἀνατολὴ, πρύμνα δὲ ἡ δύσις, τὸ δὲ κοῖλον (ita recté Gudius pro κύκλον) 
μεσημβρία. Mallem Ἡ μεσημβρία. Οἴακες δὲ αἱ δύο Διαθῆκαι" σχοινία δὲ 
περιτεταμένα ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ σφίγγουσα τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Πλοῖον 
δὲ ὃ φέρει μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς τὸ λουτρὸν τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ἀνανεούσης 
τοὺς πιστεύοντας, (cp. σκάφην Act. Apost. xxvii. 16, 30, 32,) 2. 4. scapha 
wero, quam portat secum, inest lavacrum regenerationis, ὅθεν δὴ ταῦτα 
λαμπρά: πάρεστιν, ὧς πνεῦμα, τὸ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν, (sc.“Aytov Πνεῦμα) δι᾽ οὗ 
σφραγίζονται οἱ πιστεύοντες τῷ Θεῷ, Ubi reponendum videtur ὅθεν δὴ 
ταῦτα TA λαμπρὰ, unde hec gloriosa effunduntur munera; adest, sicuti 
ventus, SPIRITUS dle celestiss παρέπονται δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ ἄγκυραι σιδηραῖ, 
αὐταὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἁγίαι ἐντολαὶ δυναταὶ ὡς σίδηρος" ἔχει δὲ καὶ ναύτας 
δεξιοὺς καὶ εὐωνύμους ὡς ἁγίους ἀγγέλους παρέδρους. Legerem Ροίϊὶι5, 
vocula transposita, ἔχει δὲ ναύτας, δεξιοὺς καὶ εὐωνύμους, τοὺς ἁγίους 
ἀγγέλους παρέδρους, δ᾽ ὧν ἀεὶ κρατεῖται καὶ φρουρεῖται ἣ Ἐκκλησία. 
Κλίμαξ ἐν αὐτῇ εἰς ὕψος ἀνάγουσα ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας εἰκὼν σημείου πάθους 


TO THE HEATHEN. 127 


manded us to wash away sin from man, regenerating 
the old man, having called man His image from the 
beginning, and thus showing by a figure His love to 
thee ; and if thou hearkenest to His holy Command- 





Χριστοῦ, ἕλκουσα τοὺς πιστοὺς εἰς ἀνάβασιν οὐρανῶν. VHSAPOL δὲ ἐπὶ 
τὸ κέρας ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ ΑἸ ΝΟΥΜΕΝΟΙ τάξις προφητῶν μαρτύρων τε καὶ 
ἀποστόλων, εἰς βασιλείαν Χριστοῦ ἀναπανομένων. De his verd quid 
statuendum? Equidem locum vexatissimum sic emendandum puto: 
WH@APA δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ ΑἸ᾽ΩΡΟΥΜΕΝΑ τάξις προφητῶν. 


Sed quid, inquies, sunt ψηφαρά Hippolytus ut apud Latinos loquens’ 


λατεινίζει, et ἃ Latinis auctoribus explicandus. Veniat igitur Tertullianus, 
veniat Minucius : uterque ad eandem rem collineans. Hic ait Octav.p. 287. 
‘* Signa ipsa et vexilla castrorum, et vexilla quid aliud quam inauratee 
Cruces sunt et ornate? Signum sané Crucis naturaliter visimus in navi 
cum ve/is tumentibus vehitur, cm expansis palmulis labitur, et cim 
erigitur jugum, Crucis signum est.” Sed propius ad rem Tertullianus, 
Apologet. cap. xvi. ‘‘In signis monilia crucum sunt; SIPHARA illa 
vexillorum et cantabrorum stole Crucum sunt.” Vides nostri ψηφαρά. 
Similiter ad Nationes, 12. ‘‘In cantabris atque vexillis SIPHARA illa 
vestes crucum sunt.” Memineris SIPHARA fuisse coloribus vivis picta, 
et formis herdum insignita, ut erat nobilissimus ille peplus Panathenai- 
cus. Ecclesize cogita SIPHARA sublime suspensa, in aérem supra navem 
Ecclesize elata, Martyribus et Apostolis, quasi ibi intertextis, insigniter 
decorata in regno Christi acquiescentibus. Képas de madi apice hic 
dici persuadent quee supra scripserat κλίμαξ ἐπὶ τὸ κέρας ἀνάγουσα. 

In hac tam curiosé¢ elaboraté Ecclesiz descriptione nullam facit 
S. Hippolytus Pontificis Romani mentionem, qui nunc omnia in 
Ecclesia moderari vult. 

Locum integrum S. Hippolyti, pro virili parte, a me recensitum sic 
Anglicé representandum reor. Zhe World is a Sea, in which the 
Church, as a Ship on the deep, ts tossed by storms, but is not wrecked. For 
she bears with herself that skilful helmsman CHRIST, and in her midst 
she has the trophy of his victory over Death, bearing the Cross of her Lord 
as her mast. The East is her prow, the West her stern, and her hold 
the South. Her rudders are the Two Testaments. Her ropes, which are 
extended about her, are the Love of Christ, which binds the Church together. 
The boat which she bears with her ts the font of regeneration whence are 
these glorious benefits : there 1s present with her as a breeze, the Spirit from 
heaven, by whom they who believe are sealed ; and she has on board anchors 


P. 3 


128 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 

a . ee “ΟΣ ‘ , \ v “ 
σεμνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος μιμητὴς, ἔσῃ ὅμοιος 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τιμηθείς. Σοῦ γὰρ πτωχεύει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ θεὸν 


/ > , > a 
ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ. 





of iron, the holy commandments of Christ, which are strong as tron ; and 
she has sailors (rowers), on the right hand and on the left, the holy Angels, 
by whom the Church is always strengthened and guarded. Her ladder 
which leads up to her sail-yard ts the likeness of the sign of the Passion of 
Christ, which draws the faithful upward to mount to heaven; and the 
streamers which are hung aloft to the sail-yard are the quire of Prophets 
and Martyrs and Apostles, who are at rest in the Kingdom of God. 

Ex hac Hippolytei ingenii scaturigine hortulos suos irrigdsse videtur 
Auctor non indisertus Operis Imperfecti in Mattheum, Hom. xxiii. 
(ap. 5. Chrysost. tom. vi. p. cv. ed. Montfaucon.) ‘‘ Quamvis infes- 
tatione Inimici Ecclesia vel szculi tempestatibus laborat, quibusvis 


70 THE HEATHEN. 129 


ment, and becomest an imitator in goodness of Him P. 339. 
Who is good, thou wilt be like Him, being honoured 

by Him. For God has a need and craving for. thee, 
having divinized even thee for His Glory. 





tentationum fluctibus pulsetur, naufragium facere non potest, quia 
Fit1um Det habet GUBERNATOREM. Navigat enim fidei Gubernaculo, 
felici cursu per hujus seeculi mare, habens DEUM GUBERNATOREM, 
ANGELOS REMIGES, portans Choros omnium Sanctorum, erecta in 
medio ipsa salutari arbore (1, 6. ἱστῷ, Italic aldero) CRUCIS, in qua 
evangelicz fidei vela suspendens, flante SPIRITU SANCTO vehitur ad 
portum Paradisi et securitatem quietis eeternz ;’”? ad quam nos perducere 
dignetur Pater misericordiarum per Salvatorem Nostrum Unicum, 
Dominum Nostrum, Jesum Christum. Amen. 


Δόξα τῷ Θεῷ. 


CHAPIER “Vil. 


The Author's Narrative concerning the Church of 
Rome.—Olyections considered. 


ON reference to the foregoing narrative, the reader will 
see that the Author begins with describing a particu- 
lar heresy, the NOETIAN. This consisted mainly in a 
denial of the distinct Personality of God the Father and 
God the Son, and in an assertion, that the words Father 
and Son were merely different appellations assigned 
to the same Divine Being accordingly as He existed 
in different relations, or manifested Himself in different 
modes.’ Hence, its promoters were called Patripas- 
stans ; in other words, they were charged with affirm- 
ing that it was the Father Who suffered in fact, | 
although He whose Passion is described in Holy 
Scripture is called the Son. Hence, also, they were 
regarded as originators of the heresy which afterwards 
became more notorious under the name of Sabel- 
lianism, from its principal promoter SABELLIUS, who 
followed in the track of Noetus.? 


1 See Philosoph, pp. 284, 285. 
* Sabelliani (says 5. Aug. de Heeres, XLI.) a Noeto defluxisse 


NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 181 


Our Author traces the course of Noetianism from 
Smyrna to Rome. It is said by him to have made 
its appearance at Rome when Zephyrinus was Bishop 
of the Church there. It was not altogether a new 
dogma at Rome, for, according to Tertullian, a heresy 
had been there propagated by Praxeas, who afterwards 
passed over into Africa, which resembled that of 
Noetus. Perhaps it was received at Rome with less 
suspicion,® because Praxeas had made himself con- 
spicuous by the part he took against the Montanist 
heresy, which was obnoxious to the Roman Church, 
and which was combated by the Roman presbyter 
Caius, in the time of Zephyrinus.* 

However this may be, our Author relates,’ that 
the Noetian heresy obtained great success at Rome. 
Its principal teacher, Cleomenes, organized a congre- 
gation there, and attracted numerous disciples. At 


dicuntur, nam et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sa- 
bellium. 

S. Augustine says that in his days the name of Noetians was almost 
obsolete (de Heres. XLI.). Noetiani difficile ab aliquo sciuntur, 
Sabelliani autem sunt in ore multorum. Nam et Praxeanos eos a 
Praxea quidam vocant, et Hermogeniani vocari ab Hermogene 
potuerunt: qui Praxeas et Hermogenes eadem sentientes in Africa 
fuisse dicuntur. Nec tamen istze plures sectze sunt, sed ejusdem sectze 
plura nomina . . .; and of the Sabellians he says, Patripassiani quam 
Sabelliani pluries nuncupantur. 

3 Tertullian, adv. Praxeam I., Praxeas Episcopum Romanum 
agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani. . . coégit literas pacis revocare. 
Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Rome procuravit: prophetiam expulit 
et heresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit. 

Praxeas and Noetus are mentioned as distinct persons by Philastrius 
de Heresibus LIII., LIV. 

4 See above, chap. iii. δ See the narrative above, chap. vi. 


ἢ K 2 


182 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


length, partly by persuasion, partly by corruption, he 
won over the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus, whom 
our Author represents as covetous and illiterate; and 
so he obtained Episcopal sanction for the heresy of 
Noetus. 

The principal agent in this unhappy work of apo- 
stasy, according to our Author’s relation, was Cal- 
listus. He represents Callistus as an ambitious per- 
son, aspiring to the Episcopal chair at Rome. He 
exhibits him as the confidential counsellor of Zephy- 
rinus, and as exercising a dominant influence over 
his ‘mind. In a word, he intimates that Zephyrinus 
was Bishop only in name, while, in fact, Callistus 
administered the affairs of the Roman Church. 

Our Author next introduces an episode concerning 
the early career of Callistus ; which the reader may 
see, in the Author’s words, in our foregoing chapter.® 

During the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, according to 
our Author's narrative, there were two parties in the 
Roman Church; one the orthodox, the other con- 
sisting of those who inclined to the opinions of Sabel- 
lius, who, it seems, was then at Rome. Our Author 
describes his own intercourse with Sabellius, and he 
had (as he informs us) almost prevailed on him to 
renounce his errors, and to embrace the truth. But 
Callistus stood in the way. He, to increase his own 
influence, and to promote his own designs, communi- 
cated with both parties, and endeavoured to ingratiate 
himself with both. With the orthodox he professed 


® Chapter vi. pp. 74—97. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 133 


orthodoxy, and with the Sabellians he was a Sabellian. 
Callistus inveighed with great virulence against our 
Author,’ who (it appears) stood almost alone on the 
opposite side, and publicly denounced him with slan- 
derous appellations, calling him a Dzthezst, or believer 
in two Gods. So great, however, was the address of 
Callistus, and so successful were his manceuvres in 
dealing with both parties, and in gaining them over to 
his own interests, that on the death of Zephyrinus, 
when the See became vacant, Callistus (to use our 
Author’s words) “ presumed that he had attained the 
object of his ambition,” which, we learn from another 
passage, was no less than the Episcopal chair at 
Rome.® 

Upon this, “ Callistus threw off Sabellius as hetero- 
dox, through fear of me (says our Author), and be- 
cause he supposed that he would thus be able to wipe 
off the stain of obloquy to which he was exposed in 
the eye of the churches,’ as not being of a sound 
faith.” 

Being, however, pressed by Sabellius on the one 
side, and by our Author on the other, and being 


7 See p. 285, ed. Miller. Above, p. 75. The pages of Miller’s edition 
are given in the margin of chapter vi. 

8 P, 288, 96, ed. Miller, μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν, νομίζων 
τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, compared with p. 284, 77. ταύτην τὴν αἵρεσιν 
ἐκράτυνε Κάλλιστοε--- θηρώμενος τὸν Tis ἐπισκοπῆς θρόνον. 

9 Perhaps, as was usual with Bishops in ancient times, Callistus 
had sent missives to other Churches to notify to them his election ; and 
some inquiries or remonstrances may have been addressed by them, and 
some requisitions may have been made that he should clear himself from 
the charge of heresy. 


184 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


ashamed to retract his opinion, and to profess the true 
faith, Callistus made a compromise, and devised a new 
Heresy, denying the divinity of the Son as a distinct 
Person from the Father, and yet not professing that 
the Father had suffered in the Son. 

Our Author proceeds to say, that in the time of 
Callistus,' corrupt doctrine in the Church was accom- 
panied with laxity of discipline ; and he affirms that 
the popularity of Callistus was due, ina great measure, 
to the indulgence he gave to the vicious passions of 
those who were under his charge. And yet, says our 
Author, they whose life and belief are such, “presume 
to call themselves a Catholic Church.”? Our writer, 
however, treats them as Heretics. He calls their con- 
gregation a school, and says that it survived at the 
time he was writing, which was after the death of 
Callistus, and that they were named Cad/istians.$ 

-Such is our Author’s account of the CALLISTIAN 
HERESY. | 


In the perusal of this narrative, two questions arise. 
We know that from about A.D. 192 to A.D. 223,‘ the 


' Above, p. 91. 2 Above, p. 95. 3 Above, p. 97. 
4 Jaffé (Regesta Pontificum, Berlin, 1851,) arranges their Episcopates 
thus, PP: 4, 52— 7 
VICTOR, A.D. 190 or 192 ?—202. 
(Euseb. v. 22, 23.) 
ZEPHYRINUS, A.D. 202—218. 
(Euseb. v. 28 ; vi. 21.) 
CALLISTUS, A.D. 218—223. 
(Euseb. vi. 21.) 
See also Concilia, i. pp. 591—615, Labbe, ed. Paris, 1671. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 1385 


See of Rome was occupied in succession by Victor, 
Zephyrinus, and Callistus ;— 


I. Does then the Author intend to convey to his 
readers the impression, that the CALLISTUS whose 
Heresy he is describing, was Callistus the BISHOP of 
ROME who succeeded Zephyrinus ? 


II. If so, is this narrative worthy of credit ? could 
it have been written by Hippolytus, who was a scholar 
of Irenzus, a Bishop and Martyr, and who is vene- 
rated as asaint by the Roman Church, and has ever 
been regarded by the Universal Church as one of the 
greatest theologians and Christian teachers in the 
third century ? 


1. As to the former of these two inquiries, it will 
be observed that the Author nowhere ascribes to Cal- 
listus, whom he charges with Heresy—the style and 
title of Bzshop of Rome. He appears, in some re- 
spects, to regard him rather as a professorial teacher, 
than as an Ecclesiastical Primate. He calls his dis- 
ciples “a school,’ a name often applied to heretical 
teachers,°—but never gives them the name of “a 
church.’ This is the more remarkable, because when 
speaking of Victor, who was Bishop of Rome, from 
A.D. 192 to A.D. 202, and who was succeeded by 
Zephyrinus, he uses no such reserve. He openly and 


5 See Euseb. iv. 7; iv. 11, Μαρκίων ηὔξησε τὸ διδασκαλεῖον ; iv. 29; 
v. 13, and passin. 


186 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


explicitly calls him “the blessed Victor, Bishop of the 
Church.” δ And when in the course of his narrative 
he comes to the death of Zephyrinus, and we expect 
to hear it recorded, perhaps with an exclamation of 
sorrow and indignation, that Zephyrinus was suc- 
ceeded by Callistus the Heretic, we seem to be put off 
with a vague and equivocal phrase ; “ After the death 
of Zephyrinus,” we read,’ “he (Callistus) presumed 
that he had gained the object of his ambition ”—which 
we learn from another part of the narrative to have 
been the Bishopric of Rome. 

There is something almost mysterious in this seem- 
ing ambiguity of language, which at first excites 
suspicion. Jf Callistus—Callistus the Heretic—was 
really Bishop of Rome, why does not our Author 
say so? Why does he seem to decline the assertion ? 
Is it because it was not true? Did he mean to con- 
vey the idea that Callistus attained the place to which 
he had aspired? If so, why this hesitation? Why 
does he not say plainly,—Victor was succeeded by 
Zephyrinus, and Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callis- 
tus, in the Roman See? 

2. In considering these inquiries, let us remember 
that our Author’s narrative was written after the 
death of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. He mentions 
that event. Our Author, living at Rome, must have 
known that a Callistus had succeeded Zephyrinus in 
the Roman See. And, if Callistus the Heretic was 


6 Above, p. 85. 7 ove, p. 85. § Above, p. 85. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 137 


not Callistus the Bishop, he would have taken good 
care that no one should confound the two. But he 
has not done this. On the contrary, he produces the 
impression on his reader’s mind, that they are one 
and the same person. He speaks of the succession of 
Zephyrinus and Callistus ;° he mentions that on the 
death of Zephyrinus, Callistus thought he had attained 
the object of his wishes. He thus intimates that, 
however Callistus might be regarded by others, he 
presumed himself to be Bishop of Rome. 

3. Again, he uses the expression—“such events 
took place under’ him,” that is, in the time of his rule, 
meaning the rule of Callistus; and the events which 
he is describing are Episcopal Consecrations and 
Ordinations of Priests and Deacons; by which he 
seems to indicate that Callistus exercised Episcopal 
and Metropolitan jurisdiction. And, he affirms that 
the adherents of Callistus were the majority of Rome, 
and he says that they called themselves “a Catholic 
Church.”? 

4. Besides, 2. Callistus the Heretic was not Callis- 
tus the Bishop, then, living at Rome as he did after 
Zephyrinus, he lived under Callistus the Bishop ; for 
Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus, A.D. 218; and Callis- 
tus the Heretic propagated his Heresy under him. 
And no mention whatever occurs of any opposition 
being made to Callistus the Heretic by Callistus 
Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, the followers 


® Above, pp. ὅς, 85. 1 Above, pp. 89—95. 


138 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


of Callistus are represented as forming a majority at 
Rome. 

5. On the whole then we may conclude that,— 
according to our Author,—Callistus the Heretic was 
Callistus Bishop of Rome. And this opinion is now 
generally accepted by all, whether Roman Catholics 
(such as the learned Dr. von Dollinger) or others. 

But why then does our Author use such an am- 
biguous expression as this, “ Callistus deemed that he 
had attained the object of his ambition” ? Why does 
he not say that he did actually attain it ? 

6. To this question we may answer,—No one doubts, 
we suppose, that Zephyrinus—the Zephyrinus men- 
tioned by our Author—was Bishop of Rome. No 
one questions that he succeeded Victor, and sat in the 
See of Rome for about seventeen years. No one 
doubts that our Author intends us to understand that 
the Zephyrinus of whom he is speaking, was Zephy- 
rinus, Bishop of Rome, and no other. 

Now, what we may here observe is, that our Author 
uses almost the same term when ‘he is speaking of 
Zephyrinus, as that which he uses when he is speak- 
ing of Callistus. ‘ Zephyrinus,” he says, “presumed 
that he governed the Church (of Rome) at that time.” ? 
And “Callistus (he says) presumed that he had 
attained the object of his wishes,’ which he had 
before told us was “ the Episcopal Chair.” 

Each of these two expressions illustrates the other. 
Zephyrinus presumed to be Bishop, and he was Bishop 

2 P2496. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 139 


of Rome. Callistus presumed to have attained the 
Bishopric, and he also was Bishop of Rome. 

7. But why did our Author say that they presumed 
themselves to be Bishops? why did he use such ex- 
pressions as these ? 

The reason, probably, was this: He wished to con- ¥ 
trast the orthodox Victor with his unworthy succes- 
sors. He therefore calls zm “Victor of blessed 
memory, Bishop of the Church.” But, according to 
our Author, Zephyrinus and Callistus were heretics. 
‘They presumed themselves to be Bishops. But 
our Author, when speaking of their false teaching, 
would not call them Bishops. He would not give the 
title of Bishop to patrons of heresy, who denied the 
Divine Personality of Christ. 

8. Such would be our reply to the first question 
proposed. Let us offer some further remarks in sup- 
port of this explanation. 

The question of the validity of episcopal and 
priestly ministrations, when performed by Bishops 
and Priests in heresy, was a subject which tried the 
patience, and exercised the charity, of the Christian 
Church in the next age to that of. Hippolytus, par- 
ticularly in the controverted question of heretical 
baptism, under St. Stephen of Rome on the one side, 
and St. Cyprian of Carthage on the other, who, with 
many bishops of Africa and Asia, denied the validity 
of baptism administered by heretics. It was after- 
wards illustrated by the learning of St. Jerome in his 
disputation with the Luciferians, and was elucidated 


/ 


140 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


by the wisdom and charity of St. Augustine, in his 
dealings with the Donatists, and has been admirably 
handled by our own Richard Hooker, in his argu- 
ment against Puritan allegations, in the third book of 
his Ecclesiastical Polity. Let me also refer to the 
statements on this subject in our Twenty-sixth Article, 
and to the Expositors of it. 

This grave question has been debated in later times 
in our own Church, in her intercourse with opposite 
parties on both sides ; and it is a topic which requires 
to be handled with prudence, calmness, and discretion, 
as has been made abundantly manifest by the evil 
results which have arisen, on the one side, from lati- 
tudinarian laxity which connives at false doctrine in 
those who hold office in the Church ; and on the other, 
from unrelenting rigour rejecting the ministrations 
of some who bear rule in the Church, and denying 
the validity of the office, when the doctrine of those 
who hold it is not altogether exempt from serious 
admixtures of error. I do not now enter into the 
question whether the opinions broached by our 
Author in this portion of his work had not a tendency 
toward Novatianism and Donatism. Let me reserve 
this question for consideration hereafter. 

Our present purpose is to note facts. 

9. We were at first somewhat staggered by the 
manner in which our Author speaks of Callistus. A 
reason has been suggested for that language. Callis- 
tus, and we may add Zephyrinus, are not fully recog- 
nized by our Author in this narrative as legitimate 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 141 


Bishops of the Church—decause they were abettors of 
Fleresy. 

10. Let us now observe, that this language of 
reserve in speaking of Bishops in heresy, was charac- 
teristic of a celebrated school, to which our Author 
belonged. Dr. von Dollinger, in his work on Hip- 
polytus and Callistus (p. 326), has made some stric- 
tures on this statement ; but I see no reason to retract 
it. St. John himself, in the Apocalypse (a portion of 
Scripture which appears to have been studied by this 
school with special attention), had said in his address 
to his own Church of Ephesus, “I know thy works, 
and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst 
not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried 
them which say that they ave Apostles, and are not, and 
hast found them ars.” ἢ 

The teachers of this school inculcated the duty of 
holding communion and fellowship with those who 
possess, what they termed the charisma,—grace or 
gift,—of Afpostolical succession,’ and they also laid great 
stress on succession of sound doctrine. This is clearly ex- 
pressed in the following sentences, from the pen of one 
among the most eminent theologians of that school ;— 

“ Genuine gnosis,” or knowledge—says St. Irenzus, 
Bishop of Lyons (whose scholar St. Hippolytus was),’ 


ἃ Rev. ti. 2. 

4S. Iren. iv. 45, ed. Grabe. Ubi charismata Domini posita sunt, bt 
oportet discere Veritatem apud quos est ea quze est ab Afostolis Ecclesia 
successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile comversationis, et 
inadulteratune et incorruptivile sermonzs, constat. 


5 S, Iren. iv. 63, ed. Grabe. 


142 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


—as opposed to the false philosophy of the Gnostics 
who professed to be the only wise, “is the doctrine of 
the Apostles, according to the ancient constitution of 
the Church in the whole world, and the badge of the 
body of Christ, according to the succession of Bishops, 
to whose care they (the Apostles) delivered the Church 
in every place: in which*® (Church) has been trans- 
mitted to us, guarded without adulteration, the plenary 
yuse of Scripture, admitting neither addition nor cur- 
tailment, and the reading of Scripture without corrup- 
tion, and legitimate and diligent Preaching, according 
to the Word of God.” 

Again, he says, “ We must seek the truth where there 
is the succession from the Apostles and good conversa- 
tion and unadulterated truth.’*? “We must obey those 
presbyters in the Church, who have the succession from 
the Apostles, and, éogether with the Episcopal succes- 
sion, have received the genuine charisma of Truth ; 
and we must shun all others ;” * and he compares “ere- 
tical Bishops and Priests to Nadab and Abihu, the sons 
of Aaron, who offered strange fire (Levit. x. 1, 2), 
whereas schismatics are like Korah and Dathan, who 
were not priests, but usurped priestly functions (Num. 
xvi.). And again, “ Every word will be established 
to him who has diligently read the Scriptures among 
* those presbyters who are in the Church, and with 
whom is Afostolical doctrine.” ὃ 


6 The reading of the old Latin Version is gue: for which we ought 
perhaps to read gud, in wich. 
7 S. Iren. iv. 45, ed. Grabe. 8 Ibid. c. 43. 9 Ibid. c. 52. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME, 143 


Such is the teaching of St. Irenzeus, the scholar of \/ 
St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. 

A scholar of St. Irenzeus speaks thus as to the 
grace of ministerial succession from the Holy 
Apostles, together with sound doctrine: “No one” 
(he says) “can rightly refute the dogmas of Heretics, 
save only the HOLY SPIRIT, given in the Church; 
which Spirit the Apostles first received, and communi- 
cated to those who believe aright, whose successors we 
are, partakers of the same grace, principal sacerdocy, 
and doctrine, and watchmen of the Church.” ' 

Again, he thus speaks in another place: 

“Let not a Bishop domineer over the Deacons or 
Presbyters, or the Presbyters domineer over the 
People. For the constitution of the Church is formed 
of them all. Not every one who prophesies is pious, 
nor every one who casts out devils is holy. Even 
Balaam prophesied, who was a godless man; and 
Caiaphas,—/falsely named a high priest. The Devil 
himself and his angels reveal many things that are 
future. A Bishop who is burdened with zgnorance or 
malice*® ts no longer a Bishop,—but ts falsely so called.” 

Such is the teaching of a writer of this school: 
that writer is ST. HIPPOLYTUS.® 


1 St. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, p. 3, 60. 

2 ἀγνοίᾳ ἢ κακονοίᾳ πεπιεσμένος. St. Hippolytus seems to refer to 
his own personal experience in these two terms, ἄγνοια and κακόνοια, 
ignorance and malice ; the first was the case of Zephyrinus ; the second, 
of Callistus. 

3 In περὶ χαρισμάτων, a work embodied in the VIIIth Book of Apos- 
tolic Constitutions (Patr. Apostol., ed. Cotelerii, i. p. 391), whence it is 


144 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


12. Another objection to our narrative is made by 
an able writer. “Among the bad practices which | 
this work (p. 95) attributes to Callistus, is that of 
repeating baptism. Now, how could this circumstance 
fail to be mentioned when rebaptism became the sub- 
ject of dispute with St. Cyprian, who was made 
Bishop only twenty-five years after the death of Cal- 
listus ? St. Cyprian is supposed to have been nearly 
coeval with the century; though not a Christian, 
therefore, he must have been of mature age in the 
time of Callistus. How came this circumstance to 
escape notice, when St. Stephen adduced the unvary- 
ing tradition of the Church of Rome as an argument 
against rebaptism ? When St. Cyprian brings Scrip- 
tural arguments against the propriety of the usage 
(Ep. lxxiv. 9, ad Pompeium), and Firmilian objects 
to the consuetudo Romanorum (Ep. |xxv. 19), how in- 
credible is it, that they should fail to notice sucha 
capital objection, as that the practice of Rome itself 
had not been invariable? Yet how could the events 
of their own time have been unknown to men like St. 
Cyprian, who was evidently in continual intercourse 


transcribed in Hippolyti Opera, i., ed. Fabricii, p. 247, and it is included 
in the recent edition of St. Hippolytus by Lagarde, pp. 73—89. See 
also Preefat. ibid. p. vii, and Le Moyne’s Varia Sacra, p. 1074, and 
Fabr. Hipp. i. 260. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. P. i.c. 4. Dorner, Person 
of Christ, i. ii. p. 452. It is ascribed to Hippolytus in a Vienna and 
an Oxford MS. The title of such a work upon the Statue of St. Hippo- 
lytus, as written by him (see the frontispiece to the present volume), is 
περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις. The mention of its being derived 
from ‘‘ Apostolic Tradition” may have commended it to the special 
regard of the compilers of ‘‘the Apostolic Constitutions.” 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 145 


with the capital, and, like Firmilian, whose activity 
twice led him to visit Antioch, in order to investigate 
the truth of the reports circulated against its Bishop 
(Eus. viii. 30)? We have said enough to show the grave 
doubts which attach to the narrative before us.” 

This objection is also pressed by another learned 
critic.‘ “It is hardly likely that if the fall of Callistus 
were known in the days of the rebaptizing controversy, 
it would have escaped the vigilance of Cyprian, or 
still more, of Firmilian.” ᾿ 

These objections have been well answered by Dr. 
von Dollinger; who pertinently observes (p. 189) 
that the Author of our Treatise does zot say that re- 
baptization was practised at Rome, but that in the 
time of Callistus it first began to be practised by 
some persons in communion with him; which was 
true. He implies that he did not protest against it ; 
—as he ought to have done, and as was done by his 
successor Stephen in his controversy with St. Cyprian. 

13. Thus, then, we perceive that those expressions 
in this narrative, which at first caused us embarrass- 
ment, are explained by reference to the teaching of 
the school in which St. Hippolytus was trained, and to 
the language used by himself in another place ; and 
thus our difficulties have befriended us, and do in fact 
confirm the proofs already stated, that the newly- 
discovered “ Refutation of all Heresies” is from the 
pen of St. Hippolytus. 


4 Dublin Review, No. Ixvi. p. 404. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


The Author's Narrative concerning the Church of 
Rome.—Other Objections considered. 


LET us now resume the inquiry ; | 

Whether we are justified in affirming that the nar- 
rative contained in the Ninth Book of the Treatise 
before us, came from the pen of Hippolytus ? 


1. In reading that portion of the Treatise, we ob- 
serve indications of personal animosity : it is charac- 
terized by a spirit of sternness, almost of asperity. 
And it was written and published after the death of 
Callistus.’ 

Supposing the above narrative to be true, are 
we authorized to believe that Hippolytus, the scholar 
of St. Irenzeus, and a Bishop and Doctor of the Church, 
who is called, by an ancient writer,’ “a person of very 
sweet and amiable disposition,” and laid down his 
life as a Martyr for Christ, would have expressed 
himself in the language of this Treatise, concerning 


1 See above, pp. 96, 97, and p. 330, ed. Miller. 
2. S. Chrysostom (?) de Pseudoprophetis, tom. viii. p. 79, ed. 
Montfaucon. Ἱππόλυτος γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατον". 


NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 147 


Zephyrinus and Callistus, who had been Bishops of the 
Church, and had now been called away by death, from 
a world of strife, to render up their accounts to God? 

In our Author’s narrative there are some symptoms 
of self-sufficiency, which may appear to be hardly 
consistent with the character of a Christian Bishop 
eminent for holiness, as St. Hippolytus is believed to 
have been. He records his own acts (it may perhaps 
be said) with something like self-complacency, and 
even with boastful ostentation. “We (he says) resisted 
Zephyrinus and Callistus.”* “We nearly converted 
Sabellius.”* “ All were carried away by the. hypo- 
crisy of Callistus except ourselves.”*® “Callistus 
threw off Sabellius through fear of me.” ° 

May it not be said that this is the language of 
vain-glory and egotism? Could it be the language 
of Hippolytus ? 

2. Besides, in perusing this history, the reader will 
not fail to observe that some of the Author’s observa- 
tions have a sectarian tendency. He is vehement in 
his denunciations of Callistus for laxity of discipline, 
as well as for unsoundness of doctrine. If his narrative 
is true, this is not surprising. But then his own 
arguments, with respect to Church discipline, are open 
to serious objection. He seems to doubt whether the 
Church Visible on earth is a society in which there 
will ever be evil men mingled with the good. He 
scarcely seems to admit that the Ark, containing 


3 Above, p. 67. 4 Above, p. 75. 
5 Above, p. 73. 6 Above, p. 85. 


148 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


clean and unclean animals, was a figure of the Church 
in her transitory character. He is not disposed to 
recognize the Church Visible in the Field of Wheat 
and Tares;"’ he seems almost eager to imitate the 
servants in the Parable,and pluck up the tares before 
the time of harvest ; and he appears to indulge a hope 
that the Church on earth can be a field of wheat, and 
of wheat alone. 

Here we see signs of impatience. And we know 
what evil results followed from the workings of a 
spirit similar to this in the age of Hippolytus. It 
produced the schism of Novatian at Rome, who was 
offended with the facility with which the Roman 
Church readmitted to communion heinous offenders, 
and especially the /apsz, who had apostatized from 
Christianity in persecution ; and who procured him- 
self to be consecrated Bishop of Rome, in opposition 
to Cornelius,* and so (to adopt the language of 
modern times) became the first Anti-pope.? Nova- 
tianism propagated itself from Rome throughout a 
great part of the world, and distracted Christendom. 
The same spirit displayed itself in feuds and factions, 
in outrage and bloodshed, among the Donatists who 
disturbed the African Church, in the fourth and fifth 
centuries ; and it has never ceased to operate with 
disastrous energy, and to produce calamitous effects 
even to this day. | 

Again— 


7 See the notes above, chap. vi. Pp. 92. 8 Euseb. vi. 43. 45. 
9 A.D. 251; below, p. 158. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum, p. 8. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 149 


3. Suppose this Narrative to have been written and 
published by Hippolytus. What impression would it 
have produced at Rome? Here is a Work in which 
the Author speaks of two Roman Bishops in terms 
of severe censure. He represents himself as their 
antagonist. He reprobates them as false teachers. 
One of them connives at heresy ; the other founds an 
heretical school. Such are the terms which he applies . 
to Zephyrinus and Callistus. Both of them were 
Roman Bishops. Both have been canonized by the 
Church of Rome. Both are now venerated in her 
Breviary as Saints and Martyrs.’ 

Can he who writes thus be St. Hippolytus? If 
so, how is it to be explained that his name has 
been venerated for many centuries by the Roman 
Church ? Would she have permitted a Statue to be 
erected in his honour in a public place in one of her 
own cemeteries ? In a word, if two of her Bishops had 
been denounced by him as heretics, and if, after their 
death, he had published the history of their heresy to 
the world,—would she have revered Hippolytus as a 
Saint ? 


Let us consider these questions. 


1 See Breviarium Romanum S. Pii V. jussu editum in Aug. 26 and 
Oct. 14. Compare Bianchini in Anastas. Bibliothec. de Vit. Rom. 
Pontif., where the date of the martyrdom of Zephyrinus is said to have 
been 26th July, A.D. 217. In some Roman Martyrologies it is placed 
on 20th Dec., A.D, 218. Concerning Callistus, see Mansi Not. in 
Baron. ad A.D. 226, and Lumper des Romanis Episcopis Sec. iii. ὃ ii. 
The date of his martyrdom is placed by some authorities on 14th Oct., 
A.D. 223. 


150 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


1. As to our Author’s demeanour and language 
towards heretics. ) 

The Apostle and Evangelist St. John was the 
beloved disciple. The mainspring of his teaching 
was Love. When in his old age he was brought 
into the church at Ephesus, the constant theme of his 
discourse was, “Little children, love one another.” ? 
And yet in his Epistles, when he writes concerning 
heretics, “who abide not in the doctrine of Christ,” 
St. John says, “If there come any unto you, and 
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your 
house, neither bid him God speed: for he that 
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil 
deeds.”* And tremendous are the denunciations of 

/ his Apocalypse against the abettors of heresy and 
corrupt doctrine, and against those who communicate 
with them in their errors.* 

The prevalent opinion of the Church, concerning 
St. John’s sentiments and example with regard to 
heretics, is well indicated by the record of the in- 
cident related by St. Irenzeus® concerning the Apostle. 
He quitted the bath at Ephesus, we are told, when 
he heard that Cerinthus was there, and exclaimed, 
“Let us make haste to flee the place, lest the house 
fall on our heads, since it has under its roof 
Cerinthus, the enemy of truth.” 

St. John was full of the Holy Ghost—the Spirit of 
Truth and Love. He, doubtless, in his own person, 


2 S. Jerome in Galat. vi. 3 2 John I0, 11. 
4 £Z. g. Rev. ii. 15. 20—23 ; xiv. 9, 10. 5 iii. 3, p. 204, Grabe. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 151 


combined the Christian graces, Faith and Charity, 
in harmonious proportion. Among his scholars he 
numbered St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. In the 
Epistles of the one we see love for the Truth ; but 
love of Unity appears to be the master bias. In 
St. Polycarp we behold ardent zeal for the Faith, 
with vehement antagonism to Error. “ Knowest thou 
me?” said Marcion the heretic to Polycarp, whom 
he met, as it seems, at Rome, whither Polycarp had 
come from Smyrna, to visit Anicetus, Bishop of Rome ; 
“Yes,” was the reply, “I know thee well,—the first- 
born of Satan.” ° 

St. Irenzeus, when a boy, had seen “the blessed 
Polycarp ;” he treasured his sayings in his memory, 
and has recorded them with affectionate veneration. 
And in imitation of the frankness of Polycarp, and 
of his sternness of speech, when dealing with Heretics, 
he tells Florinus,—the heretic.—that if the holy 
Polycarp, whom both of them had known in youth, 
had heard the strange dogmas which Florinus was 
broaching, he would have stopped his ears, and 
exclaimed—“ O merciful God, to what times hast 
and would have fled from the | 


”) 
! 


thou reserved me 
spot with execration.’ 

2. Let us now, for argument’s sake, be allowed to 
suppose that our Author’s narrative is true, Let us 
see whether there is anything in it inconsistent with 
the character of St. Hippolytus. 


6 S. Iren. iii. 3. Euseb. iv. 14. 
7 5. Iren. ap. Euseb. v. 20. Routh, Opuscula, i. p. 32. 


152 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


St. Hippolytus was trained in this school to which 
we have referred, as tracing its succession from St. 
John. He was adisciple of Irenzeus, had heard his 
lectures, and has shown himself to have been a dili- 
gent reader of his works. He trod in his steps, and 
dwelt on the subjects which had been before handled 
by Irenzus.*° He firmly asserted the continuity of 
spiritual grace, derived by succession from the Apos- 
tles in the laying on of Episcopal hands. Thus he 
affirmed the principle of Church Unity inculcated in 
the Epistles of St. Ignatius. He possessed also, in 
abundant measure, the masculine vigour and daunt- 
less courage and fervent zeal of St. Polycarp. He loved 
the truth; he fought manfully for it; and abhorred 
Heresy. He had seen its bitter fruits, he beheld it 
flourishing and dominant, in one of its most hateful 
forms, making havoc far and wide in the fairest 
Church of the West. Under such circumstances as 
these, it required something more than the spirit of 
an Irenzeus, an Ignatius, or a Polycarp—it demanded 
the spirit of a St. John, the divinely-inspired Apostle 
and Evangelist, so to contend against Error, as not 
to violate Charity ; and so to resist Heresy, as not to 
execrate Heretics. And let us bear in mind, that 
though Zephyrinus and Callistus were dead at the 
time when our Author wrote, yet their Heresy was 
not dead: Callistus had passed away, but he had left. 
Callistians behind him.° 


® As a comparison of the catalogues of their works respectively will 
show. 

9 Above, p. 97, and 329 (Miller), αἵρεσιν ἕως νῦν ἐπὶ τοὺς διαδόχους 
διαμείνασαν. From the terms in which Sabellius is mentioned in this 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 153 


Our Author had been engaged in a conflict with 
Callistus, and was still at war with his disciples. 
That conflict had been a public one. Callistus and 
his adherents had denied the Divine personality of 
Christ as distinct from the Father. Our Author 
asserted it, and Callistus had reviled him openly as 
“a worshipper of two Gods.” ' Hence this contro- 
versy was a personal one. No one (says a great 
Father of the Church) should remain patient under 
a charge of heresy. If Callistus was right, our Author 
was wrong. If Callistus, Bishop of Rome, did not 
impose sinful terms of Communion, our Author was 
a schismatic. If Callistus was orthodox, our Author 
was a heretic. Nay, he was worse than a heretic; he 
was a polytheist. He must therefore vindicate him- 
self. He had been accused publicly, he must ex- 
culpate himself publicly. And he could not other- 
wise show that he himself was not heterodox, than by 
proving Callistus a heretic. 

When we consider these circumstances, and that 
men, however holy, are men, and are liable to human 
infirmities, especially when agitated by strong pas- 
sions, or engaged in personal struggles concerning the 
most momentous articles of the Christian Faith, it 
will not seem to be improbable that one eminent in 
the Church, like Hippolytus, should have written as our 
Author has done. 

Treatise (pp. 285. 289, 290), it may be inferred that it was written at 
a time when the name of Sabellius and of his heresy had become 
notorious ; and, according to our Author, the prevalence of that heresy 


was due in great measure to Callistus. 


1 Above, pp. 73—75, and p. 87. 


164 ; NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


3. When we remember also the particular school in 
which Hippolytus had been trained, and when we add 
to this the fact, observed by an ancient writer, that 
Hippolytus gave evidence of a fervid temperament, 
and was probably of Asiatic origin,*® we see no reason 
to think that such a narrative as the present could 
not have been written by Hippolytus. 

4. We do not dispute the fact that there is a tone 
of self-confidence in this narrative. 

But let us remember the circumstances of the case. 
Our Author, whoever he was, was a learned and 
eloquent man. Few persons in his age in Christendom, 
none probably in the West, could have composed the 
Volume before us. It is rich in human learning as 
well as divine. The style is somewhat turgid, but it 
displays solid erudition, as well as luxuriance of 
language. Let us imagine such a person as this 
residing at Rome inthe second and third centuries. 
He was well qualified to be “ Bishop of the Gentiles ” 
on account of his Greek learning and eloquence, 
and also to be Bishop of Portus, because it was 
the principal harbour of the imperial City, and was 
thronged with strangers, Greeks, Asiatics, and 
Africans, merchants, shipmen and soldiers, Philoso- 
phers, Physicians, Ambassadors, and Astrologers, 
Christians, Jews, and Pagans flocking to Rome. 


2 Phot. Cod. 202. θερμοτέρας γνώμης. See also some pertinent 
remarks by Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 488, on the style and character 
of the Author of the Little Labyrinth, 2.2. on Hippolytus. 

3 A learned friend suggests a parallel in the strong language of St. 
Chrysostom against Eudoxia, Similar instances might be easily 
collected from every age. ; 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 65 


And let us suppose such a person as this associated 
with such Ecclesiastics—and placed under the rule 
of such Bishops—as he represents Zephyrinus and 
Callistus to be: the one illiterate, the other profligate, 
both promoters of heresy. Let his account of their 
doings be exaggerated—though it is not easy to say 
why an Author who writes likes the Author of the 
Philosophumena (and who appears to be no other 
than St. Hippolytus, a Bishop and Doctor of the 
Church) should be accused of misrepresentation,—yet 
this we know, that the Western Church at that time 
was not endowed with erudition—especially such 
learning as that in which our Author excelled. He 
had the misfortune to be placed under Bishops far 
inferior to hintself. And “knowledge puffeth up.” 
His own superiority was a stumbling-block ; their 
inferiority was a snare. Suppose such a person as 
this to have been formerly intimate with the holy and 
learned Irenzus; suppose him to have been elated 
with his ancestral dignity of doctrinal succession, 
derived through Irenzus and Polycarp from the 
blessed Apostle St. John,—What a contrast would / 
he see at Rome! What a severe trial of his temper 
would be there—what a perilous ordeal to pass 
through! Shall we be surprised that under such 
circumstances as these, expressions of conscious 
superiority, or even of vituperative indignation, should 
have escaped the lips of Hippolytus ? 

5. But, it may be said, Is there not a sectarian 
bias in this narrative? Is not the Author a parti- 
san of Novatianism ? Can this be Hippolytus ? 


166 NARRATIVE CONCERNING 


There is doubtless a strong bias toward Novatianism 
in this portion of our Author’s work. Some of his 
principles, carried out without reserve or restraint, 
would no doubt lead to schism. The mild tone in 
which he speaks of Montanism (p. 275; see above, 
chapter iii. p. 22) which prepared the way for 
Novatianism isin harmony with this opinion. But, 
when we consider human frailty, we may perhaps 
allow, that this might have been expected. 

Almost all the evils in the Church are due to ex- 
cess of reaction. Our Author represents himself as 
living at Rome when the discipline of that Church 
was very lax. His remedy lay in severity. The 
Roman Church had extended the range of communion 
too widely: he would have restrained it too strictly. 
Her latitudinarian practice gave a sectarian tendency 
to his principles. What is there here that does not 
occur, even in the best times, among the best men? 
It is the common course of human affairs. His 
contemporary, Tertullian, was offended by the same 

y licentiousness in the Ecclesiastical system of Rome, 
and lapsed into Montanism.* Even Dionysius of 
Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, is said 
by St. Basil® to have sown the seeds of Arianism. 
St. Chrysostom, in his ardour against a barren faith, 
may have prepared the way for the doctrine of merit ; 
and St. Augustine, in his strenuous struggle against 
Pelagianism, may have been a precursor of Calvin. 


4 S. Hieron. Scr. Eccl. on Tertullian, 53. 
5 S. Basil, Epist. ix. 2. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME. 157 


But shall we charge those holy men with the con- 
sequences which others deduced from their principles 
after their death? Shall we not rather suppose that 
those principles would have been modified by them, 
if they had known the consequences which others 
would draw from them; and if they had witnessed 
the results to which those principles might lead ? 

If, then, we reflect on the religious state of the 
Roman Church as displayed in this Volume, if we 
recollect the painful provocations which such dis- 
ciplinarian laxity and heretical pravity as he de- 
scribes rarely fail to minister to pious minds, and if 
we remember that we, living in the nineteenth century, 
have seen the results of reactions in the opposite 
direction, we shall not judge our Author from our 
own circumstances, but shall endeavour to place 
ourselves in his age and country, and shall attribute 
his vehement language against laxity of discipline to 
his zeal for the holiness and purity of the Spouse of 
Christ. 


Further, let us now add, we shall find in these 
very expressions, to which we have now referred, an 
additional confirmation of the proof that this Treatise 
is from St. Hippolytus. But on this point we may 
say more in the next chapter. 


CHAPTER DX. 


On Novatianism, and on the Relation of St. Hippolytus 
to it; and on the Hymn of the Christian Poet 
Prudentius on St. Hippolytus and his Martyrdom. 


IN the year 251 of the Christian era, Novatus, a 
Presbyter of Carthage, who had formed a schismatical 
party in opposition to St. Cyprian, Bishop of that 
City, came to Rome and excited a Roman Priest, 
Novatian, to follow his example, and to become the 
leader in a similar schism against Cornelius, recently 
elected Bishop of Rome. 

The plea urged in behalf of that schism was that 
Cornelius, who was of one accord with Cyprian, had 
lapsed from the true faith in the time of persecution 
under the Emperor Decius ; and that he had relaxed 
the penitential discipline of the Church by receiving 

¥ to communion on easy terms those who had fallen 
from the truth, and that therefore he ought not to be 
recognized as atrue Bishop of the Church, and that an 
orthodox Teacher ought to be appointed in his place. 
Consequently Novatian' was elected by some who 


1 Novatian himself was an example of the laxity of discipline in the 
Church of Rome. He had received only clinical baptism ; and did not 
receive Episcopal imposition of hands after it : and yet he was ordained 
to the Priesthood by the Bishop of Rome. Euseb. vi. 43. 


HIPPOLYTUS AND NOVATIANISM. 159 


held these opinions, and was ordained Bishop of 
Rome by three Bishops, in opposition to Cornelius, 
and became the first Anti-pope. 

A portion of the Laity and some of the Clergy and 
Confessors of the Church sided with Novatian, who 
maintained that they who had lapsed in time of per- 
secution could not be restored to Church communion 
in this life, however penitent they might be; and 
however it might be hoped that they might obtain 
pardon from God in the life to come.” 

Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, suffered martyrdom on 
Sept. 14th, A.D. 252; but the Novatian Schism, which 
was widely extended, and found favour with learned 
and devout partisans,® continued after his death.* 

We have already adverted to the Hymn of the 
Christian Poet, Pradentius, who wrote at the beginning 
of the fifth century ° on St. Hippolytus.® 

In that Hymn Prudentius says that St. Hippolytus, 
whose martyrdom he is describing, and for whose 
memory he expresses deep veneration, had bordered 
upon,—he uses a remarkable word, attigerat, ‘he had 
approached, ‘had nearly touched,—the schism of 
Novatus, the name often given to Movatian—whose 
name was less tractable in poetry. 

That St. Hippolytus had at some time of his life, 


2 The particulars here stated are gathered from the correspondence 
of St. Cyprian, Epist. 42. 46. 49. 52. 55 ; Euseb. vi. 43 ; Theodoret, 
Heeret. Fab. iii. 5 ; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iv. 28. 

ὃ See Euseb. vi. 44 ; vi. 46; vii. 5. 

4 See Tillemont, Mémoires iii. 480, for his history. 

5 Prudentius was born in Spain, A.D. 348. 

5 Prudentii Hymni peri Stephandén, xi. Prudent. ibid. v. 20, ed, 
Dressel, p. 442. 


160 HIPPOLYTUS AND NOVATIANISM. 


especially in the Episcopate of Callistus, inclined to the 
opinions on Church discipline which were broached by 
Novatian, is clear from his own words, which have 
been already quoted from the recently-discovered 
Volume, “ The Refutation of all Heresies,” and which 
may be seen in former pages of the present Work,’ 
and to which the reader is requested to refer. 

Those passages strongly confirm the narrative of 
Prudentius. 

But that St. Hippolytus, however he may have 
been opposed to the later discipline of the Bishop of 
Rome, never by overt acts sanctioned the schism of 
Novatian, is certain from the fact that in the cor- 
respondence of Cornelius Bishop of Rome with St. 
Cyprian Bishop of Carthage during the schism, where 
the names of the leaders on both sides are mentioned, 
that of Hippolytus never occurs. If he had taken an 
active part on either side, he was too great a man 
to have not been noticed. 

It is not improbable that Prudentius, as an ardent . 
admirer of the Church of Rome, may have placed in 
as strong a light as he could the protest of Hippolytus, 
at his death, against Novatianism, and his declaration 
in favour of that Church. Prudentius dwells on the 
Jormer approximation of Hippolytus to Novatianism. 
He brings it forward somewhat abruptly at the be- 
ginning of his poem. He desires the friend ὃ to 
whom he addresses it, not to be surprised that 


7 See above, pp. 92—95, and the notes. 
* Valerian, Bishop of Zaragoza in Spain. 


HIPPOLYTUS AND NOVATIANISM. 161 


Hippolytus, who had formerly held a perverse opinion, 
should be enriched with the prize of the Catholic 
Faith, the Martyr’s crown. For (says the Poet) 
when he was hurried away by the furious foe to 
death, and was attended by numerous followers 
among his loving flock, and was asked “ Which way 
was the better one?” he said, “Fly the execrable 
schism of the miserable Novatus; return to the 
Catholic people. Let the one faith thrive, which is 
built on the ancient temple; which Paul holds fast, 
and the Chair of Peter. It grieves me to have taught 
what once I taught. A martyr now, I perceive that 
to be venerable which once I thought to be far from 
the worship of God.” | 

Prudentius then proceeds to describe the Martyrdom 
of St. Hippolytus. He says that when the Roman 
Governor had arrived at Portus, the harbour of Rome, 
an old man in chains was brought before him, and 
that this old man was declared to be the Head of the 
Christians there, and, it was added, that if this old 
man were killed at once, the people would all worship 
the Roman gods. Then,adds Prudentius, the crowds 
clamoured for a new kind of death, in order that others 
might be terrified by it. “ What is his name?” asked 
the Roman Governor. “ Hippolytus,” was the reply. 
“Let him then be a second Hippolytus, and be tied 
to horses, and be torn in pieces by them.” ® 

Some persons have rejected this narrative of Pru- 


9 As Hippolytus the son of Theseus was said to have been. Virgil, 
ZEn. vii. 761; Ovid, Fasti, 111. 265 ; vi. 737 ; Met. xv. 497. 
M 


162 FRESCO-PAINTING AT HIS TOMB. 


dentius as fabulous. But in addition to the evidence 
supplied by the recently-discovered treatise of Hip- 
polytus, to which reference has been made, there 
are strong reasons for admitting its veracity. 

Prudentius mentions two things which confirm his 
statements. He himself saw the circumstances of the 
Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus delineated in a fresco 
which he describes very minutely,’ and which was on 
a wall near the tomb and chapel of St. Hippolytus at 
Rome, which he himself had visited. He adds also, 
that this tomb and chapel were frequented annually 
by a devout concourse of pilgrims, flocking to it from 
different parts of Italy on the anniversary of the 
Martyrdom of Hippolytus, the ides of August, viz. 
the 13th of that month. 

This picture, and these annual visits of affectionate 
friends, must have served to keep alive the record 
of the facts of the history, and were not unreasonably 
relied upon by Prudentius,? who was born in the next 
century after the death of Hippolytus. 

On the whole, I am strongly inclined to agree with . 
the learned Benedictine, Theodoric Ruinart, in his 
valuable work “ Acta Martyrum sincera,”* who says, 
“Tt is a common opinion that Prudentius has con- 
founded three persons who bore the name of St. Hip- 
polytus. But inasmuch as this opinion cannot be 
confirmed by any ancient testimony, I hope that no 


1 See his description, ibid. v. 125, and following. 
2 See the circumstantial description, ibid. vv. 184—232. 
3. Ed. 2nda, Amst. 1713, Ρ. 168. 


Ἰ 


HYMN OF PRUDENTIUS ON HIPPOLYTUS. 163 


one will be displeased if I prefer the authority of 
Prudentius, a writer distinguished by his integrity, 
learning, and sincerity, to the conjectures of modern 
writers.” 

To this let me add the words of Ruggieri, who (in 
his learned work on the Episcopal See of Hippolytus ‘) 
corrects one statement of Ruinart, and sums up an 
elaborate argument as follows: “ No other conclusion 
seems possible, than that the Hippolytus of Portus 
who is celebrated by Prudentius was Bishop of that 
City.” At the same time it ought to be added that 
Ruggieri (who had not our recently-discovered trea- 
tise) does not accept the opinion that Hippolytus ever 
inclined to Novatianism. 

And now let us mention another interesting circum- 
stance connected with the same place and person, and 
leading to the same conclusion. 

In the year 1551, during the excavations made near 
the ancient chapel of St. Hippolytus described by 
Prudentius,>’ was brought to light the celebrated 
Statue, already described (p. 29), the frontispiece of 
the present volume. It is a sculptured representa- 
tion of the Author of the recently-discovered Treatise, 
the “ Refutation of all Heresies,’ St. Hippolytus ; and 
was doubtless placed there near the tomb of that holy 
Bishop and Martyr, the eloquent and learned Teacher 
of the Bishop of the Western Church, with reverential 


4 P, 4οο in P. G. Lumper’s Church History, vol. viii. ed. 1791. 
5 See Dressel’s introductory note on the Hymn of Prudentius on 
St. Hippolytus, p. 441, and ibid. on v. 215. 


M 2 


164 DATE OF HIS MARTYRDOM. 


affection, like that which guided the hand of the 
painter of the ancient fresco representing his Mar- 
tyrdom, and which Prudentius saw and described ; 
and like that which inspired Prudentius himself when 
he wrote the hymn still extant on his Martyrdom, and 
which animated the crowds that flocked year after 
year from various parts of Italy to visit his grave on 
August 13th. 

As tothe year of his Martyrdom, I am inclined, on 
the whole, to believe that it is correctly placed by 
the Roman Martyrology under the Emperor Valerian, 
and that it took place on August 13th, A.D. 258.° All 
agree that St. Hippolytus died the death of a Martyr. 
If he was inclined to favour Novatianism, which aros2 
in A.D. 251, he could not have suffered before Valerian : 
Dr. Gieseler, Church History, says ($ 68), “ Hippolytus 
suffered Martyrdom at Portus Romanus under Vale- 
rian.” Prudentius describes him as an old man when 
he suffered. 

It may be asked, Could Hippolytus, if he suffered 
Martyrdom in 258, have been a scholar of St. Irenzeus, 
as Photius says he was? Yes. It has been shown 
by Massuet 7 that Irenzeus suffered Martyrdom, and if 
this was the case, he died probably about A.D. 208. | 

The persecution under Valerian began in A.D. 257, 
and came to an end A.D. 260, when he was captured 


Martyrol. Rom., ed. Baronii, Rome, 1586, p. 362. It describes the 
manner of the Martyrdom in the “ Ager Veranus,” ὦ. ¢. near the site of 
the Church of St. Lawrence, near which the Statue of St. Hippolytus 
was found in 1551. 

7 De S. Irenzei Vita, Diss. ii. c. 31. 


VERACITY OF PRUDENTIUS. 165 


by the Persians, to whom he was betrayed by Macria- 
nus, the officer who had excited him to persecute the 
Christians, especially their leaders; and his son 
Gallienus issued an edict proclaiming liberty of wor- 
ship, and restoring the cemeteries to the Church.°® 

Toward the middle of the year 258 the Emperor 
Valerian, who had just set out on his expedition 
against the Persians, sent a rescript to the Roman 
Senate, in which he commanded that the Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons of the Church should be con- 
demned to capital punishment; and that the Roman 
Knights and Senators® who were Christians should 
also suffer the same fate.’ 


The veracity of Prudentius has recently been im- 
pugned by a formidable adversary, Dr. Dollinger. Dr. 
Déllinger refers? to the authority of an ancient Roman 
Calendar having this record: “ Eo tempore (A.D. 235) 
Pontianus Episcopuset Yppolitus presbyter exoles sunt 
deportati in Sardinia, Insula nociva, Severo et Quin- 
tino Cons.” He supposes St. Hippolytus to have been 
an Anti-pope, and to have been banished in company 
with the legitimate Bishop of Rome, Pontianus, to the 


5: Euseb. vil. 13. 

9 St. Hippolytus is called ‘‘urbis Romanz Senator’? by 5. Jerome, 
Epist. 84. 

1 See S. Cyprian, Epist. 82, ed. Pamelii, on this fierce persecution. 
See also Tillemont, Mémoires, tom. iv. I—23, ed. Paris, 1701. 

2 Pp. 69—72. Dr. Dollinger supposes the words of the ancient 
Calendar, ‘‘in eAdem Insulé Pontianus Episcopus d@scinctus est (iiii. Kal. 
Oct.),”’ to imply that Pontian resigned his Episcopate ; but I conceive that 
the word discinctus must mean that he was deprived of it. See Du Cange 
in voce, and Valesius in Euseb. vit. Const. ii. 20, 





16s SUPRERINGS OF ZARLY MARTYRS, 


Island of Sardinia by the Emperor Maximin, A.D, 235, 
and to have died there, after they had been reconciled, 
Dr, Ddllinger thinks it incredible that such a ruthless 
punishment (as that which Pradentius deseribes as 
having been suffered by Hippolytus) should ever have 
been inflicted by a Roman Governor on an aged 
Ecclesiastic, even in the hottest persecution, Dr, 
Dillinger does indeed refer to the manner of the 
Martyrdom * of St. Lawrence, Archdeacon of Rome, 
burnt alive on a gridiron, probably in the same perse- 
eution, in the year 258, under the Emperor Valerian, 
and probably only three days before the Martyrdom 
of St. Hippolytus, August 13. 
A Governor who was capable of condemning St. 
Lawrence at Rome to that horrible torture * would 
not have scrupled to do what Prudentius describes 
as done to St, Hippolytus at Portus. Besides, an 
Imperial Governor could condemn a delicate Christian 
woman, Blandina, at Lyons, to be tossed in a net by a 
wild bull ἢ and an Imperial Governor could condemn 
another delicate Christian woman, Perpetua, to be 


goaded by a wild cow® at Carthage. Tortures even. 


more cruel than these are recorded as having been 
inflicted in the presence of Emperors themselves at 
Nicomedia.’ Is it therefore improbable that an 


* Dillinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp, 5867. 

* S. Ambrose de Officils, i, 41, and the noble Hymn of Pradentius on 
the Martyrdom of S, Lawrence, Peri Steph, ii, 

* Eusebd wo 

* “ Ferocissima vacea,”—Ruinart, Acta Martyram, μι τοι, 

Eusebius, H. E. viii, 5, and see ibid, ς, p—13, 


VERACITY OF PRUDENTIVUS. 167 


Imperial Governor, urged on by an infuriated mob, 
should have sentenced Hippolytus (whose name sug- 
gested sucha punishment) to be torn in pieces by 
horses, as Prudentius describes ? 

The same learned writer, Dr. Déllinger, rejects the 
narrative of Prudentius as incredible,’ because the 
Poet says that Hippolytus suffered martyrdom at the 
harbour of Rome, Portus, and that his remains were 
buried by his faithful friends in the suburb of the City 
of Rome, fifteen miles off. Those cherished remains, 
he says, would have been reserved by his friends for 
burial at the place where he was martyred. | 

But is this certain? At first sight, no doubt, there 
is something strange in the poet's narrative. But 
even its strangeness would have deterred Prudentius 
from inventing it. 

Let us remember also that the celebrity of Rome 
would impart a dignity to Hippolytus, and would 
attract more pilgrims to his grave. Besides, it appears 
that Hippolytus was interred near the burial-place of 
St. Lawrence,’ where the Church bearing his name 
now stands, and near which the Statue of St. Hippo- 
lytus was found in the year 1551. 

If now our St. Hippolytus was the same Hippolytus 

8 Hippolytus, &c., p. 65. 

9 Prudent. v. 151 :-τ 

Ostia linquunt, 
Roma placet, sanctos quz teneat cineres. 

1 See Anastasii Bibliotheca, in Hadriano 1mo; ‘‘ Coemeterium Bea 
Hippolyti juxta 5. Laurentium renovavit.” And see Ruggieri, De sede 


Hippolyti, p. 474, and Mr. Augustus Hare’s Walks in Rome, ii. 142, 
and Bunsen’s Rom., iii. 117. 


168 ST. XVYSTUS AND ST. LAWRENCE. 


as was martyred on August 13th, A.D. 258,? and whose 
name was very famous in the Church, and who suffered 
martyrdom the third day after the martyrdom of 
St. Lawrence, who suffered, and was buried, at Rome, 
it is not surprising that two such noble comrades in 
suffering for Christ should be interred in the same 
cemetery. And if St. Hippolytus had formerly been 
disposed to favour Novatianism, but had protested 
against it at his death, as Prudentius affirms he did, 
then there was something very reasonable and appro- 
priate in this union of St. Hippolytus the Bishop of 
Portus with St. Lawrence the Archdeacon of Rome, 
who had followed to death his beloved master the 
revered Bishop of Rome, St. Xystus, after an interval 
of three days.* 

The Bishop of Rome, St. Xystus, was martyred on 
August 6th. The Archdeacon of Rome, St. Lawrence, 
was martyred on August 1oth, and St. Hippolytus 
(I believe) on the 13th; and St. Cyprian was martyred 
at Carthage on the 14th of September of the same 
year. 

And here we have another incidental confirmation 
of the veracity of Prudentius. 


2 Cp. Tillemont, Mémoires, iv. p. 599. Le nom de S. Hippolyte 
Martyr honoré le 13 d’aoust est fort celebre dans l’Eglise. 1] est dans le 
calendrier de Bucherius, dans celui de l’Eglise del’ Afrique, dans celui de 
P. Fronto, dans les martyrologes de Saint Jerome, dans le sacramentaire 
de Saint Grégoire ou il y a une preface propre, et dans le missel romain 
donné par Thomasius. Le P. Mabillon dit que celui qui est dans 
l’Eglise de l’ Afrique est celui dont parle Prudence. 

5 See S. Ambrose de Officiis, i, 41, and the grand meen of Pru- 
dentius,. Peri Stephandén, ii. 27—30, p. 308 Dressel. 


MARTYRDOM OF HIPPOLYTUS. 169 


Novatian, the schismatical Bishop of Rome, the 
first Anti-pope, died about the same time.* 

If, as we have reason to believe, Hippolytus was 
martyred August 13th, A.D. 258, the see of Rome 
was vacant at the time of his martyrdom by the death 
of Xystus, and remained vacant for nearly a year, to 
July 22nd, 259, when Dionysius succeeded in the 
Episcopate. 

At that critical juncture the question, which Pru- 
dentius says was put to Hippolytus by the Christians 
just before his martyrdom, “quznam_ secta foret 
melior ?” °—which party they should follow,—was 
very pertinent and seasonable; and Prudentius says 
that to it St. Hippolytus replied, “Flee the schism of 
Novatus, and return to the Catholic Church.” 

The narrative of Prudentius receives confirmation 
also from the Ecclesiastical Historian Nicephorus,’ who, 
though a late writer, is often of great service, because 
he has preserved records from books now lost. He 
says that Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus (the 
harbour of Rome), flourished in the time of Severus, 
and published many wise works, among which he 
specifies the “ Refutation of all Heresies” (the newly- 
discovered treatise), and others; some of which are 
enumerated on the Statue of Hippolytus. He then 


4 Socrates Scholasticus, Eccl. Hist. iv. 28, who says that he died 
under Valerian, z.¢. not later than A.D. 260. Socrates, even in the 
time of the younger Theodosius, writes with a favourable bias to the 
disciplinarian system of Novatian. 

5 Prudent. Peri Steph. xi. 28. 

δ Nicephorus, Callisti, iv. 31. 


170 HIS PROTEST AGAINST NOVATIANISM. 


adds, that there were “some things in his writings 
which might be taken hold of as reprehensible (ém- 
ἀρ βοαα but that afterwards, being consummated 

by Martyrdom for Christ, he wiped off the stain of 
ignorance in these respects.” 

Some persons have been perplexed by the application 
(in this hymn) of the name “ Presbyter” to Hippoly- 
tus, who wasa Bishop. But there is no difficulty here; 
though a Presbyter is not called a Bishop by ancient 
authors, yet a Bishop, especially one who was a learned 
and eloquent Teacher of the Church, as Hippolytus 
was, is often called Presbyter;’ and Prudentius 
declares in this hymn that the Martyr Hippolytus, 
whose death he describes, was a Bishop, by saying, 
that he was the Head of a Christian Church (v. 80). 

A pertinent question has been asked. If St. 
Hippolytus at his Martyrdom gave a public testimony 
against Novatianism (as Prudentius affirms that he 
did), how are we to explain that St. Cyprian in his 
Epistles never refers to that protest ? The answer is, 
St. Cyprian himself was martyred about the same 
time, probably about a month after St. Hippolytus. 

A great man, St. Dionysius, became Bishop of 
Rome in the following year, A.D. 259, and in his 


’ £. g. Trenzus is twice called μακάριος πρεσβύτερος in this treatise, 
Pp. 202. 222, and never ᾿Επίσκοπος : see also Clem. Alex. Peedag. iii. 
p. 291, ed. Potter, and Strom. vii. p. 830, notes, where it is shown that 
in the second century Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters. See 
also Euseb. iii. 23, where a Bishop is so called; and Dr. Déllinger 
(Hippolytus, pp. 338—341) clearly shows that Presbyter was a title of 
honour given to Bishops as Doctors of the Church. He refers to Irenzeus, 
Vv. 20. 


WHEN WAS HIS STATUE ERECTED? 171 


Episcopate the energies of the Church were drawn off 
from the struggle with the Novatian schism, and were 
concentrated in vigorous resistance to the Sabellian 
heresy ; against which St. Hippolytus had (as he 
himself tells us in the 'recently-discovered treatise) 
contended strenuously, when it was favoured by 
Callistus, Bishop of Rome. 

Perhaps it was at that time that the Statue was 
erected over his grave.* Perhaps some who erected it 
venerated him the more because he had stood firm 
against the Sabellian heresy, patronized by two 
Bishops of Rome. When, soon after the death of 
Hippolytus, Sabellianism (the natural growth of 
Noetianism) became widely dominant in Christendom, 
and made great ravages in the Church, perhaps 
through the previous example and influence of 
Zephyrinus and Callistus, as described in the narrative 
before us, then that other Bishop of Rome, the learned 
Dionysius (A.D. 259—269) came forward to stay the 
plague. He vindicated the true faith from the 


8 Baron Bunsen places its erection later (p. 223), viz. at some period 
between the age of Constantine and the sixth century ; but there is good 
reason to agree with Dr. Déllinger in thinking it earlier. The Paschal 
Calendar inscribed upon it, dates from A.D. 222; and as Turrianus 
observes (ap. Fabricium, Hippol. i. pp. 164—171), and after him Ideler 
(Chronol. ii. p. 22), the Calendar appears to have been inscribed there 
for contemporary use ; and could not have been long in use, on account 
of certain imperfections in its construction. After the lapse of very few 
of its cycles of years, it would have been superseded, and no one would 
have been at the pains to engrave it. If this reasoning is correct, the 
Statue is of more interest and value, as being almost a contemporary 
monument, set up in a sacred place of Rome, and a contemporary 
tribute at Rome to St. Hippolytus. 


172 PEACEFUL END OF THE CONTROVERSY. 


aggressions of Sabellianism on the one side, and 
of Tritheism on the other.” Then probably the 
services that had been rendered by Hippolytus to 
the cause of Christianity by his gallant resistance 
to a pestilent heresy, first by his eloquent denun- 
ciations of Noetus' (and of Callistus), and by his 
antagonism to Sabellius, were gratefully appreciated 
by the Church and Bishop of Rome. Then his name 
was beloved, and his memory revered by her. 
Thousands flocked to the tomb of one who had con- 
tended for the honour of Christ in his life, and had 
glorified Him in his death. Then perhaps this Statue 
was erected. Then the infirmities of temper, the 
vehemence of language, the scornful sarcasm, and 
bitter altercation were forgotten. The schism had 
been healed by death, and the memory of passionate 
conflicts was buried in the Martyr’s grave. 


® For a summary of his history in this respect, see Bp. Pearson, 
Dissert. i. c. 10. 5. See also Coustant, Epist. Rom. Pont. p. 271, ed. 
Paris, 1721; Tillemont, iv. pp. 237—242; Routh, iii. 373-403; 
Neander, ii, p. 369. Fragments of the work of Dionysius called 
᾿Ανατροπὴ, or Refutation, are preserved by St. Athanasius de decretis 
Synodi Niczenze, ὃ 26, and are contained in Routh, Reliquiz, iii. 373— 
377. ὃ μὲν Σαβέλλιος βλασφημεῖ αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν πατέρα, 
καὶ ἔμπαλιν" οἱ δὲ τρεῖς θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν, εἰς τρεῖς 
ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας διαιροῦντες τὴν ἁγίαν 
Τριάδα (p. 373). 

1 The treatise of St. Hippolytus against Noetus (Routh, Scr. Eccl. i. 
49—8o0) is copied by St. Epiphanius in his description of the Noetian 
heresy (Ady. heer. 57, c. 1), as has been observed by Tillemont (iv. 
p- 238). 


CUAP TION. οἷς 


Further Remarks on Novatian and Novatianitsm ; and 
on the Relation of St. Dionysius the Great, bishop 
of Alexandria, to them and to St. Hippolytus. 


THE name of Novatian holds an unhappy place in 
Church history, as connected witha deplorable schism, 
But there were extenuating circumstances in that 
dissension. Ecclesiastical Discipline was administered 
at Rome with remissness, which produced feelings of 
sadness and distress among many good men, such as 
Fabius Bishop of Antioch’ and others, who were 
therefore inclined to favour Novatianism. Let it also 
be remembered, that although Novatian held erro- 
neous opinions on penitential discipline, and was 
suilty of schism in making those erroneous opinions 
to be a reason for setting himself in opposition to 
Cornelius, the legitimate Bishop of the Roman Church, 
yet he showed himself zealous. for Catholic doctrine, 
in opposition to heretical corruptions, and entitled Y 
himself to the gratitude of his own and future genera- 
tions by his treatise still extant on the doctrine of the 


1 Eusebius, vi. 42—44. 


174 SOME PLEAS FOR NOVATIAN. 


Blessed Trinity,? in which, as has been already ob- 
served in the notes to our Author’s narrative concern- 
ing the Roman Church, there are many things which 
remind us of St. Hippolytus. On that account, per- 
haps, he was endeared to so strenuous a champion of 
orthodoxy as Hippolytus was. Novatian was also 
eminent for his ability, eloquence, and learning ; for 
which reason he was appointed by the Church of 
Rome to write a letter, still extant, in its name to 
the African Church on the subject of indulgence to 
the lapsed.’ : 

Above all, it ought not to be forgotten that questions 
concerning penitential discipline and Church Unity 
had not then been fully discussed as afterwards they 
were, especially in the time of the Donatistic * Con- 


2 See S. Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, ¢. 70. 

3 See S. Cyprian, Epist. 31, 32, and 52. 

An apology forS. Hippolytus in his leaning towards Novatianism 
is supplied by the following excellent remarks of S, Augustine in Psal. 
54. Multa latebant in Scripturis, et cum precisi essent heeretici, 
queestionibus agitaverunt Ecclesiam Dei. Aperta sunt que latebant : 
et intellecta est voluntas Dei. Numquid enim perfecté de Trinitate 
tractatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani? Numquid perfecté de 
peenitentia tractatum est, antequam.obsisterent Novatiani? Sic non 
perfects de baptismate tractatum est, antequam contradicerent foris 
positi rebaptizatores. Nec de ipsa unitate Christi enucleaté dicta erant 
quze dicta sunt, nisi posteaquam separatio illa urgere ccepit fratres 
infirmos. Ut jam illi qui noverant heec tractare atque dissolvere, ne 
perirent infirmi solicitati quzestionibus impiorum, sermonibus et 
disputationibus suis obscura legis in publicum deducerent. And de 
Civ. Dei, xvi. 2. Multa quippe (says Augustine) ad fidem Catholicam 
pertinentia, dum hereticorum callida inquietudine exagitantur, ut 
adversus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentius, et intelli- 
guntur clarius, et instantius preedicantur, et ab adversario mota questio 
discendi exsistit occasio. 


WHY NOVATIANISM AROSE. 175 


troversy. It had not been clearly determined whether 
separation from an Apostolic Church was justifiable 
by reason of errors of doctrine tolerated in it, and of 
prevalent laxity of discipline. It had not been settled 
as yet, as a fixed principle, that voluntary and wilful 
separation from an Apostolic Church cannot be 
excused ; and that nothing can justify separation 
from such a Church, except the imposition of heretical 
terms of Communion by it; and that then the guilt of 
the schism (and wherever there is schism, there is 
σα 110) lies with the Church which zmoses such here- 
tical terms of Communion, and not with those who 
do not, and cannot, accept them. 

If Callistus imposed his own heretical dogmas as 
terms of Communion with himself, Hippolytus could 
not have communicated with him; but Cornelius, 
the contemporary of Novatian, was a very different 
man from Callistus, and separation from him could 
not be justified. 

On the supposition that the narrative of Prudentius 
is true,—and there seems to be no good reason for 
doubting its truth,—it becomes an interesting subject 
for inquiry, “By what means was St. Hippolytus 
induced to renounce opinions favourable to Nova- 
tianism ?” 

May I offer a conjecture in reply to this question ? 

There was one man at that time who held a high 
position, as the most celebrated theologian of the 
East; he was eminent for soundness of doctrine, 
courage in maintaining it, far-reaching sympathies, 


ν΄ 


176 DIONYSIUS THE GREAT. 


and universal charity, and he will hereafter be 
numbered among those of whom it was said, “ Blessed 
are the peacemakers.” This was St. Dionysius, de- 
servedly called the Great, Bishop of Alexandria. He 
was a man of noble family; had held important 
civil offices before he was a Bishop, and was distin- 
guished by his love of literature, secular and sacred. 
He was married and had children, and lived a 
domestic life in honour and peace.” He was won 
over to Christianity by reading the Epistles of St. 
Paul, and became a friend of Origen and of Heraclas 
the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, 
whom he succeeded in that position, and also in the 
Episcopal See of that City, in the year 248. ; 

In the year 250, in the Decian persecution, Diony- 
sius was a valiant Confessor of the faith, and was 
delivered from death by an extraordinary providence 
of God.° 

The persecution of the Church came to an end 
before the death of the Emperor Decius, which took 
place in November or December 251. Cornelius had 
been elected Bishop of Rome in the summer of that 
year, and wrote to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
a letter concerning the state of the Roman Church, 
then distracted by the schism of Novatian. 
_ This letter produced a reply to Cornelius, and also 
a letter from Dionysius to Novatian 7 which deserves 


5 See the authorities in Tillemont, iv. 243. 
6 Euseb. vi. 40, 41. 46; vii. 11. 
7 Euseb. vi. 46. 


HIS LETTER TO NOVATIAN. 177 


careful attention. In that letter Dionysius addresses 
Novatian in terms of affection as a brother—‘ If, as 
you say, you were raised to the Episcopal office 
against your will, you will prove the truth of your 
words by resigning it. Men ought to be ready to 
suffer anything in order to avoid the rending of the VA 
Church by schism. Martyrdom to shun idolatry is 
less glorious than Martyrdom to shun schism. In 
the former case a man suffers on behalf of his own 
soul ; in the latter he suffers on behalf of the whole 
Church. And now if you would persuade or constrain 
the brethren to return to unity, your good deed would 
be greater than your former fault ; the latter will be 
no longer imputed to you, the former will be com- 
mended. But if you can prevail nothing with the 
unruly, save your own soul. I-.wish you health, so 
long as you embrace peace in the Lord.” Dionysius, 
who on many occasions showed tender consideration 
for the /apsed, and eloquently pleaded their cause,° 
laboured earnestly to appease the schism. Eusebius 
says’ that he wrote several Epistles “on Repentance” 
(the subject debated in the Novatian schism) 
to the brethren in Egypt, at Hermopolis, and in 
Armenia; and that he had been invited to a Synod 
at Antioch to appease that schism; and that he 
wrote to the brethren at Rome concerning repentance, 
and to the Confessors at Rome who had espoused the 
cause of Novatian. He was not successful with 


8 Euseb. vi. 423 vi. 443 Vi. 45. 
9 Euseb. vi. 46. 


178 DIONYSIUS AND HIPPOLYTUS. 


Novatian himself, but, in conjunction with others, he 
prevailed on the Confessors who had sided with 
Novatian, to return to the unity of the Church." 

Perhaps the letters of Dionysius to the Roman 
Church, and to Novatian, may have been seen by 
Hippolytus. Cornelius himself, and sixty Bishops 
assembled with him in Synod at Rome, offered terms 
of reconciliation and peace.’ 

To the counsels of such a person as Dionysius, 
venerable for his age, piety, holiness, learning, and 
eloquence, it may be supposed that Hippolytus would 
have been willing to defer.’ 

Among the Epistles of St. Dionysius to the bre- 
thren at Rome, one was extant in the days of Euse- 
bius,* which was sent “ dy Hippolytus,’ and entitled 
Sia ἽἽππολύτου διακονικὴ, and St. Jerome (de Scrip- 
toribus Ecclesiasticis, 69) says, that he wrote “ad 
Romanos per Hippolytum alteram Epistolam de peni- 


A») 


tentid. 

Weare startled by these words διὰ Ἱππολύτου, “ per 
Hippolytum ;” our attention is arrested by the intro- 
duction of the name Azppolytus thus briefly, as if it 
were well known ; and we are led to ask, Can it mean 
any other person than the celebrated Hippolytus ? 


1 Euseb, vi. 46. 

2 Euseb. vi. 43. Nicephor. vi. 5. Fronto Duczus in his note to 
Nicephorus refers to Hippolytus. 

3 Another labour of love which was performed by St. Dionysius with 
wisdom, learning, personal energy, and success, was the allaying of the 
Millenarian Controversy. This was in the years A.D. 254, 255. See 
pen vii. 24. And may I refer to my note on Rey. xx. 6, p. 268. 

* See Fabricius, Hippolyt. i. 244. 247. 


EPISTLE OF DIONYSIUS. 179 


It would certainly have suggested him to the readers of. - 
Eusebius and Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries. 
Just as the ancient expressions διδασκαλία διὰ Ἵππο- 
λύτου, and περὶ χειροτονιῶν δι᾿ Ἵππολύτου" sug- 
gested, and were generally supposed to suggest him. 
And Eusebius himself thus introduces the name 
Hippolytus, simply and abruptly, without any epithet 
or other qualifying accompaniment, when he is speak- 
ing of our Hippolytus in his history (Lib. vi. 22). 

But what then is the meaning of διακονική The 
critics are in doubt. Goar thinks that it means a 
synodical Epistle ; Ruffinus translates it “de minis- 
teriis ;” Valesius and Tillemont conjecture that it 
signifies ‘on the duties of deacons.” But all these 
interpretations are questionable. Perhaps the adjec- 
tive διακονικὴ is equivalent to εἰρηνικὴ, and a diaconic 
Epistle is equivalent to an Lzrenzkon, a message of 
peace. The Prayer for Peace in the ancient liturgies 
at the Holy Eucharist was appointed to be said by the 
Deacon, and was therefore called τὸ διακονικὸν," and a 
Diaconic Epistle may have been a prayer for peace, and 
an exhortation to peace; and being addressed to the 
Church of Rome, was it intended to heal the Novatian 
schism, and restore peace? In this opinion also we 
are confirmed by St. Jerome’s testimony, who says 
that the Epistle which St. Dionysius wrote to the 
Romans by Hippolytus, “per Hippolytum,” was “de 
Poenitentid,” “on repentance,” the question at issue 

5 See Fabricius, Hippolyt. i. 244. 247. 
6 See Suicer, Thesaurus, i. 864. 1035, ed. Amst. 1682. 
N 2 


180 PEACE. 


in the Novatian Controversy. It was of the same 
tendency as that which he wrote to Fabius, Bishop of 
Antioch, who favoured Novatian. 

May I therefore be allowed to offer a conjecture? 
Did St. Hippolytus, the most learned Bishop of the 
West, repair to Alexandria in order to confer with 
St. Dionysius, the greatest Bishop of the East, on the 
course to be pursued with regard to Novatianism ? 

If so, this absence may perhaps account for the non- 
appearance of his name in the correspondence with 
St. Cyprian at that time ;—or did he, being at Portus, 
remain in a state of neutrality, and did St. Dionysius 
address his letter of mediation and reconciliation to 
the Roman Church through him ? 

In either case Dionysius, the greatest Bishop of the 
East, corresponding with the most eloquent, learned, 
and celebrated Bishop of the West, Hippolytus, and 
endeavouring to promote the welfare of the Church 
by his means, would have shown gracefulness of tact, 
and delicate refinement, blended with Christian wis- 
dom and Christian love, which could hardly fail to 
exercise a happy and holy influence on the con- 
tending parties, and to join them together in faith and 
love, in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. 


CHAPTER. Af, 


Szlence of Church Historians.—Objections from tt 
' considered. 


WE have already considered some of the various 
questions which occur to the reader when he first 
peruses our Author’s narrative concerning Zephyrinus 
and Callistus. 

Let us now proceed to examine some others. 

1. We see in that narrative two Bishops of Rome, 
the greatest Church in the West, not only charged 
with Heresy, but with patronizing and propagating it. 
And they are represented as disparaging those who 
were orthodox, and as assailing them publicly with 
calumnious appellations, and other contumelious in- 
dignities. If this had been the case, we feel dis- 
posed to ask, Would not the whole Church have 
sounded an alarm? Would not the world have rung 
with the fame of such doings as these? Let us cons 
sider some parallel cases. What a stir was made in 
Christendom, when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, lapsed 
into Arianism in the fourth century. And with what 
surprise and consternation did the Church Universal 


182 POPES DISCLAIMING INFALLIBILITY. 


receive the intelligence, that Pope Honorius, in the 
seventh century, had communicated with the Mono- 
thelites? Notwithstanding all the extenuating cir- 
cumstances pleaded in their favour, the names of 
Liberius and Honorius have been branded with the 
stigma of infamy (the latter by Popes themselves), and 
have been generally regarded with sorrow mingled 
with abhorrence by a great part of Christendom, from 
their own times even to this day.’ 

2. But who knows the name of Zephyrinus as 
connected with heretical doctrine ? Who knows the 
name of Callistus as the founder of a sect? And if, 
our Author’s narrative is true, they were not only 
Heretics, but Heresiarchs. Would they not, therefore, 


1 Especially Pope Honorius: anathematized as a heretic even by 
Popes themselves, on their accession to the Papacy. See the ‘‘ Liber 
Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum ” (ed, Paris, 1680), used in the eighth 
century at the consecration of Roman Bishops, who then made a 
solemn public declaration as follows: ‘* Auctores novi heeretici dogmatis 
Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum et Petrum Constantinopolitanos, una cum 
Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit... cam 
omnibus heereticis scriptis atque sequacibus nexu ferpetut anathematis 
devinxerunt. Cum supra fatis Aereticis, Sabellium, Paulum Samosatenum, 
Marim Persam, Montanum, Donatum,. . . execramur ac condemnamus.” 
The reader may see a full and clear statement as to this remarkable 
document in Routh, Scr. Eccl. ii. pp. 145—163, ed. Oxon. 1858. 

It is certain that Popes then affirmed themselves to be zo¢ infallible. 
For not only did the Popes declare that“Pope Honorius had fallen into 
Fleresy, but their Profession of Faith goes on to say, ‘* Unde et districti 
anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, si quis unquam, seu /Vos, sive est 
alius, qui ovum aliquid presumat contra hujusmodi evangelicam 
traditionem et orthodoxee fidei Christianzeque religionis integritatem.” 

What would the Popes of the first eight centuries have said to the 
decree of the Vatican Council, July 18, 1870, affirming that the Pope is 
infallible? And can Popes be ¢zzfallible, since they contradict one 
another as to their own fallibility 1 


SILENCE OF CHURCH HISTORIANS. 183 


have taken their place as such in the pages of Church 
History? Would not Eusebius have recorded their 
acts? Would not St. Jerome? Would they not 
have been enumerated in the copious Catalogues of 
Heretics, drawn up by the laborious diligence of 
Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Damascene? 
If Liberius and Honorius attained such unhappy 
notoriety, surely some records would survive of the 
more miserable apostasy of two Bishops of Rome in 
succession—Zephyrinus and Callistus,—who propaga- 
ted heresy, and proscribed those who were orthodox. 

Such surmises as these have doubtless occurred to 
the reader of this narrative, and they have been pro- 
pounded by some as objections to its credibility. 

Let us consider them. 

If in previous Chapters it has been shown to be 
certain, that the Work before us is a work of Hip- 
polytus, if we have seen reason for believing that 
the narrative in the Ninth book is from his pen, then 
we have good ground for saying, that the narrative 
is deserving of credit. For it comes from a person. 
of unimpeachable character, who was a Bishop of the 
Roman Church in the age of Zephyrinus and Callis- 
tus. Therefore we are bound to say, History is xot 
silent on the subject of their apostasy. On the con- 
trary, our Author informs us, that the Heresy patro- 
nized by Callistus produced “a very great confusion 
in the minds of all the faithful in all the world.”? 
It did make a great noise: it excited a great com- 

2 Above, p. 65. 


184 EARLY ROMAN CHURCH HISTORY. 


motion. It did not escape the notice of History. 
St. Hippolytus is its Historian. 

But, it may be said, these considerations do not 
remove the difficulty. For if our Author is Hip- 
polytus, if this narrative is from his pen, how is it 
that the facts narrated by him did not become gene- 
rally known? If Zephyrinus and Callistus acted 
and taught, as our Author says they did, and if our 
Author was a Bishop of the Roman Church, how is 
it to be explained that the name and narrative of 
St. Hippolytus did not give notoriety to them ? 

Such questions, we may first observe, appear to 
proceed from a lack of adequate discrimination of 
times and seasons in the Church. They seem to 
arise from a habit of mind formed under the in- 
fluences, literary and theological, subsequent in time 
tothe epoch at which our Author wrote. The eyes 
of men have been so much dazzled with the splendour 
with which the Church of Rome has been invested 
since the tenth century, and they are.so much im- 
pressed with the grandeur and magnificence which she 
displayed in medizval times, that they are hardly able 
to see clearly what she was in the first ages of Chris- 
tianity. They reflect their own ideas back from the 
thirteenth century to the third. But it is for the calm 
and thoughtful student of History to emancipate his 
mind from the thraldom of such delusive impres- 
sions. 

Each age has its own character. The ante-Nicene 
period is different from the Nicene. The Christian- 


INSIGNIFICANCE OF ROMAN CHURCH. 185 


ization of the Empire introduced a new era in the 
history and fortunes of the Church. 777 such events 
as our Author describes had taken place in the fourth 
or fifth centuries instead of the third, then indeed they 
would have been noised throughout the world, and 
the echo of them, sounding far and wide, would have 
been heard distinctly at this day. 

If, again, the Scene of such events as these had been 
in the Last, instead of the West, then it is probable 
the world would have heard much of them for 
some time. The Eastern Church, even then, was 
eminent for learning. But Rome was barren in 
Theological Literature. Noetus, an Eastern 
Smyrna, was well known to the Church. But there 
were few comparatively in the world to record the acts 
of the Roman Callistus. Let us, then, bear in mind 
the place and time at which the events in this narra- 
tive are represented to have occurred,—Rome, in the 
beginning of the third century. Rome at that time 
did not contain more than forty-six Presbyters,—not 
more than many of our own Cathedral cities.* It was 
still almost a heathen city. St. Jerome affirms (Ep. 
οὔ, ad Princip.) that many Priests at Rome in his age 
fell into Origenistic heresies, through the simpleness 
of the Bishop of Rome, and were set right by a 
woman. It has been asserted by Aéneas Sylvius, who 
afterward became a Bishop of Rome as Pius II. 
(A.D. 1458), that “* before the Council of Nicza little 


3 Euseb. vi. 43. 
4 Epist. 31, ad Martinum Mayerum. ‘‘ Ante Nicenam Synodum 


186 EARLY ROMAN CHURCH HISTORY. 


regard was paid to the Church of Rome, and that 
every one in Christendom looked after their “own 
affairs,’ and cared little for the sayings or doings of 
Roman Bishops. This is a strong statement ; but we 
should be involved in serious error, if we estimated 
the importance of Rome and her Bishops in the third 
century by the influence which they afterwards 
acquired.’ In external respects, there was almost as 
much difference between Callistus and Innocent III., 
as there was between Servius Tullius and Augustus 
Cesar. And it was not more strange that Callistus, 
the Slave of Carpophorus, should become a Roman, 
Bishop, than that Servius, the Slave of Tanaquil, 
should become King of Rome. 

We may pursue the parallel further. To us the 
History of the Roman Church in the beginning of the 
third century has been hitherto almost an unexplored 
region. It has been what the history of Heathen 
Rome is under her Kings—almost barren of facts, and 
peopled with fables of a later age. We have had few 
materials whereby to form an accurate judgment con- 
cerning it. And in this consists the value of the 


unusquisque sibi vixit, et parvus respectus ad Romanam Ecclesiam 
habebatur.” 

5 Neander justly observes, ii. 483, ‘‘ Important as the Church of 
Rome decame . . . yet it was from the beginning comparatively barren 
in respect to all theological science. . . . Two individuals only appear 
to have distinguished themselves as ecclesiastical authors among the 
Roman Clergy, the presbyter Caius the opponent of Montanism, and 
Novatian, whom Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, calls 6 δογματιστὴς," 
Euseb. vi. 43, amame which, Neander remarks, suggests that such a 
phenomenon was rare at Rome. Tertullian’s home was Carthage. 


MINOUCIUS FELIX. 187 


present narrative in the recently-discovered Treatise. 
If it is genuine, if it is authentic, it may almost be 
called an historical revelation. It aids us in filling up 
a chasm in a very interesting period of Church His- 
tory. The rescue of this single Volume from the 
monastic cloister of Mount Athos, is a more important 
event than the disinterment of a chest of ancient 
“ Libri Pontificum,” composed under Kings of Rome. 
There is extant an ancient Dialogue of a Chris- 
tian Author, written in Latin, distinguished by 
perspicuity and elegance of style, and dating as 
it would seem from nearly the same period as the 
recently-discovered Treatise on Heresy. And it is 
observable, that the Scene of that Dialogue is laid at 
Ostia—within a very short distance of our Author’s 
residence Portus.° The reader will anticipate the 
name of Minucius Felix. This Dialogue, entitled 
“Octavius,” from the name of the Christian interlocu- 
tor, who prevails on his heathen friend Cecilius to 
renounce paganism for Christianity, affords no infor- 
mation with regard to the doctrinal or disciplinarian 
condition of the Roman Church at that time. But it 
seems to show that it was then a poor and despised 
community, or, as Cecilius calls it, a “latebrosa et 
lucifugax natio ”’—a “ Church of the Catacombs.” 


6. It begins with a reference to the Temple of Serapis, which stood 
at Portus. See the ancient inscription in Spon. Miscell. erudit. 
Antiquit. Lugd. 1685, p. 329: M. Αὐρήλιος “Hpwy Newkdpos τοῦ ἐν 
Πόρτῳ Sepdmidos. 

7 Minuc. Felix, p. 75, ed. Lug. Bat. 1672. See also p. 102, Pars 
vestrim major et melior egetis, algetis, fame laboratis. 


188 EARLY ROMAN CHURCH HISTORY. 


The History of the Western Church in the second 
and third centuries is, as we have said, almost a 
terra incognita. Let us consider some causes of 
this. 

The Christians at that time were engaged in acting 
and suffering, and had but little leisure for writing. 
Apologies for Christianity against Paganism, Vindi- 
cations of the Catholic Faith, and Refutations of 
Heresy, were their Literature. Being exposed to 
the peril of martyrdom, they had little means or 
inclination for the collection of materials for History. 
And even if Church Histories had been written 
in the second and third centuries, they would 
probably have been destroyed in ‘the Decian and 
Diocletian persecutions. Church History is the 
product of Peace. We may thank Constantine for 
it. . 

But it may be said, Have we not Church Historians 
who profess to describe the early period of the 
Roman Church? Have we not Eusebius? Have 
we not St. Jerome? Was not he secretary to Pope 
Damasus ἡ and must not he have known the early 
history of the Roman Church? We have indeed 
such writers, and we have reason to be thankful for 
them. But let us consider their circumstances. 
Eusebius, who brings down his history to A.D. 325, 
informs us, that he was the first who attempted to 
write a Church History. His words are remark- 
able. Heclaims indulgence because he is “ the first 
to engage in this enterprise, and because he is enter- 


LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF EUSEBIUS, 189 


ing on a desert and untrodden road, and is not able 
to find any print-marks of persons who had preceded 
him.”* Eusebius lived a century after Hippolytus. 
Besides, Eusebius was an Zastern ; he knew little of 
Latin;* his accounts of the early history of the 
Roman Church are very meagre. And St. Jerome, 
though a Western by birth, was an Eastern by resi- 
dence in his maturer years, and did not much more 
for Church History than transcribe from the work of 
Eusebius. 

Let us here notice some other instances. Eusebius, 
it is clear, did not know who was the Author of the 
“Little Labyrinth,” from which he quotes a long 
extract... We know that it was written by Hippo- 
lytus.? 

Eusebius mistakes Novatus for Novatian,’ and 
never mentions Lactantius or Minucius Felix. Theo- 
doret never mentions St. Cyprian,‘ and does not 


+ Euseb.2. 1, 

9 ** Eusebius Latinze linguze perexiguam habuit cognitionem.” See 
Vales. and Heinichen in Euseb. i. 13; ii. 23 il, 253 iv. 83 viii. 2. 
‘Eusebius ” (says Bp. Pearson, Annal. Cyprian. Preef.) ‘‘scriptor in 
rebus Occidentis parum accuratus.” Again: ““ Eusebiana Pontificum 
Romanorum Chronologia merito suspecta,” says Bp. Pearson, Dissert. 
Posth. i. c. 10, p. 101. Again: ‘*Eusebio res Occidentalis imperii 
parum cognitee,” says Dodwell, Dissert. p. 110. 

ἐν, 28. See below, chap. xii. 

2 Ruggieri says very truly, p. 497, ecentiores Scriptores multa 
sciverunt que Lusebio et S. Hieronymo fuerunt incomperta, and he 
adduces various instances in proof, pp. 497—505. 

3 Euseb. vi. 43. 45, and the Variorum Notes, pp. 511. 534, ed. Oxon. 
1842 ; and as to Lactantius, see the notes on viii. 6. 

4 “¢Theodoretus Cypriani utpote Zating nusquam meminit,” says 
Bp. Pearson, Annal, Cyprian. 


190 MEAGRENESS OF OUR KNOWLEDGE 


appear to have known the See of Hippolytus, nor 
does he mention his martyrdom.* 

Eusebius has fallen into errors in the history of 
Bishops of Rome in the age of Hippolytus. For 
example, he gives to Stephen an Episcopate of only 
two years (Euseb. vii. 6) instead of four; to Xystus 
eleven years (vii. 27) instead of two ; to Eutychianus 
ten months (vii. 32) instead of eight years. 

If then Church-Historians did not know such facts 
in the History of Popes, and of so celebrated a per- 
son as Hippolytus,—is their silence or the silence 
of others, with regard to any events in his life, or in 
the History of the Western Church in his age, to be 
regarded as of sufficient weight to set aside, or 
countervail, positive testimony from a credible source ? 
Assuredly not. ' 

When Ruffinus, presbyter of Aquileia, wished to 
give to Western Christendom a History of the early 
Church, he did not compose an original work, but 
translated the History of Eusebius. Sulpicius Severus, 
and Orosius writing in the West, show how little was 
known by Occidental Christians concerning their own 
early Church History; Socrates, Sozomen, and 
Theodoret, are Orientals.® 


5. He calls him ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυρ in several places—iv. 54. 130. 
282, and in each of these cases he quotes him after Ignatius and 
Irenzeus, whose sees he mentions, but he never mentions that of 
Hippolytus. 

° How little have we heard of Rome except through the medium of 
Greece! What should we have known of the Scipios if Livy had not 
been preceded by Polybius? The names of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
Appian, Dio Cassius, and other Greek writers suggest similar reflections. 


OF EARLY ROMAN CHURCH HISTORY. 191 


Hence it has come to pass, that we have hitherto 
been obliged to study the early History of the West, 
in the pages of the East. The Easterns were not 
acquainted with the early History of the Roman 
Church, and we cannot learn from them what they 
did not know. 

Therefore (we may repeat), no argument can be 
derived against the credibility of the present Narra- 
tive from any silence of Church Historians. 

Let us here notice two parallels to the events 
recorded in our narrative. 

A Bishop of Rome at the end of the third century, 
Marcellinus, who afterwards suffered Martyrdom, is 
said to have fallen away in the time of persecution 
from the Christian faith, and to have sacrificed to 
the gods of the heathen. This is generally stated by 
Roman writers, who have composed the lives of 
Roman Bishops.’ But Eusebius says nothing of it; 
nor any Historian of that age. 

Again; A Bishop of Rome in the second century 
was induced to favour Montanism : he acknowledged 
the prophecies of Prisca and Maximilla, and com- 
municated with Montanist congregations. And how 
do we know this? From a single passage of Tertul- 
lian;* if that had been lost, we should have heard 
nothing of this important fact. And to this day it has 
not been determined by learned men, whe that 
Montanizing Bishop of Rome was.’ But no one doubts 


7.2.9. Anastasius, and Platina. 8 Tertullian c. Prax. δ. 1. 
9 Valesius in Euseb. v. 4, thinks it was Eleutherus. So does 


192 | PATRIPASSIANISM AT ROME. 


the fact. Whether it made a noise at the time, we 
cannot say, but 


Ad nos vix tenuis famz perlabitur aura. 


These circumstances are important, as showing that, 


Bp. Pearson, Diss. ii. 9. Neander asserts that it was Anicetus (on 
Tertullian, p. 486); in another place he seems to lean to Eleutherus, 
Eccl. Hist. ii. 258; Baronius, that it was Anicetus. H. Dodwell 
affirms, with good reason, that it was Zephyrinus himself, Dissert. (ad 
A.D. 173) de Rom. Pont. Successione, xiv. § 9. Dodwell argues this 
from the close of the Catalogue of Heresies at the end of Tertuilian’s 
Preescriptiones, ‘‘ Post hos omnes, i.e. post Theodotum Argentarium 
(who was certainly under Zephyrinus, Euseb. v. 28) e¢éam Praxeas 
quidam heresim introduxit quam Victorinus corroborare curavit.” Now, 

from Tertullian c. Praxeam, c. I, it appears that Praxeas did feo things 
at Rome at one and the same time : one was, he induced the Bishop of 
Rome to revoke the letters of communion he had given to the 
Montanists ; the second was, he broached his own heresy, z. ¢. the 
Patripassian heresy, which resembled that afterwards brought to Rome 
by the followers of Noetus, and encouraged by Zephyrinus. ‘‘ Duo 
negotia diaboli Praxeas Rome procuravit; prophetiam expulit, et 
hzresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.’ 

The words ‘‘ Praxeas hzeresim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare 
curavit,” have caused some perplexity. Who was this ‘‘ Victorinus ?” 

Gieseler proposes “ Victor” (§ 60, notes 5 and 7), supposing a 
reference to Victor, Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the 
Theodotians, and therefore might be represented by some as favourable 
to the opposite heresy, that of Praxeas, 

The sentence bears a remarkable resemblance to the wens of 
S. Hippolytus speaking of Noetianism in our Treatise, as favoured by 
Lephyrinus, p. 279, 29, Κλεομένης ἐκράτυνε τὸ δόγμα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ 
Ζεφυρίνου διέπειν νομίζοντος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, and p. 284, 77; ταύτην τὴν 
αἵρεσιν ἐκράτυνε Κάλλιστος. .. τὸν Ζεφυρῖνον ... πείθων 
δόγμασι... 

Perhaps, then, the true reading may be Zephyrinus, 

A learned friend communicates a conjecture first made by Dr. Allix 
(see Waterland, v. 227. Judgt. of Primitive Churches, chap. vi.), that 
the List of Heretics at the end of Tertullian’s Preescriptiones is only a 
Latin Translation of the βιβλιδάριον of Hippolytus, seen by Photius. 
If this is the case, then the supposition above mentioned would be more 
probable. 


HERESY OF CALLISTUS. 193 


because Bishops of Rome erred in the third century, 
it does not necessarily follow, that a clear and 
circumstantial account of their errors is to be expected 
from the Church Histories which we now possess, or 
that, when we have such an account in a single writer 
of credit, we should look upon his narrative as 
apocryphal.’ 


But we are understating the argument. Our 
Author is not alone in recording the errors of Cal- 
listus. In two Roman Councils held A.D. 314 and 342 
(cap. 2) there are decrees against a Callistus who “in 
his pride separated the persons of the Trinity.” Does 
not this refer to Callistus,? Bishop of Rome ? 

Theodoret, the Ecclesiastical Historian and Bishop 


1 It is observable that Hippolytus in his Catalogue of Heretics never 
mentions Praxeas. Nor does Tertullian mention /Voetus. Yet who 
doubts the existence of either ? 

2 Concilia (ed. Labbe, i. p. 1408) de vita Sylvestri ex libro Pontif. 
Damasi. In urbe Roma Papa congregavit Episcopos 277 et damnavit 
iterum et Calixtum et Arium et Photinum et Sabellium. Ibid. p. 1542. 
Concil. Rom. sub Sylvestro A.D. 324 damnavit tam Callistum quam 
Arium et Photinum atque Sabellium. We find also there, p. 1548. 
Cap. 11. primo arbitrio Callisti damnari corroboretur examen, qui se Cal- 
listus ita docuit Sade/lianum, ut arbitrio suo sumat wszam personam esse 
Trinitatis, non enim cozequante Patrem et Filio et Spiritu Sancto. 
Cardinal Baronius receives these Acts as genuine. Annal. Eccl. A.D. 
324. Num. 126. damnavit prime actionis exordio Cadllistum Sabellit 
herest maculatum: and adds, Quisnam autem hic fuerit, ignoratur. In 
earlier times it was no strange thing for one Roman Pontiff to con- 
demn another Pope as a heretic, although long defunct,—as may 
be seen in the ‘‘liber diurnus” of the Roman Pontiffs, in which (to 
adopt Dr. Routh’s words, Pref. Eccl. Script. Opusc. p.  vili;) 
‘* Honorium urbis Romanz Episcopum szccessores ejus anathemate 
nominatim feriunt ;”’ see above, p. 182, note. 


O 


194 HERESY OF CALLISTUS 


of Cyrus in the fifth century, in his compendious 
account of Heresies, adds to his article on Noetus ἃ 
shorter one, entitled “On Cad/istus,’* as follows,— 

“ Callistus took the lead in propagating this Heresy 
after Noetus, and devised certain additions to the 
impiety of the doctrine.” * 

Here then is another witness. It is evident, as will 
be shown hereafter, from a comparison of Theodoret’s 
Account of Heresies with the newly-discovered 
Treatise,’ that Theodoret, in composing his own work, 
used our Author's Volume, and derived materials 
from it. Heregarded Callistus, Bishop of Rome, as a 
heretic, and placed him in his catalogue of heretics. 
It is certain that the newly-discovered Treatise was 
written before the time of Theodoret ; and that he 


regarded our Author as trustworthy, and followed him 
as such. 


~ Let us also recollect the character of the Callistian 
Heresy, as described by our Author. It had no 
elements of permanence. For it arose from a com- 
promise due to personal and local circumstances. It 
was an attempt to reconcile two incompatible systems 
—the system of Noetus and Theodotus. It was not 
therefore likely to make any great stir after the 
death of Callistus. It would soon be obsolete and 


* It is headed, in the Roman edition of Theodoret, περὶ Καλλίσ- 
TOU. 


* Heret. Fab. Comp. iii. 3, tom. iv. pt. i. ed. Hal. 1772, p- 343. 
5 See below, APPENDIX B. to this Volume. 


MERGED IN SABELLIANISM. 195 


forgotten. It would be absorbed in Sabellianism, 
as even the more consistent theory of Noetus was 
soon merged in that Heresy. “The Noetians,” says 
St. Augustine,’ “are scarcely known by any one now; 
but the Sabellians are in many people’s mouths.” 
No wonder that the world soon forgot the Heresy of 
Callistus. 

It may be here observed, that Theodoret states 
that no vestige even of Sabellianism remained in 
his age.* He is speaking of the East. And probably 
it was almost extinguished at Rome, by Dionysius, 
Bishop of that Church, in the middle of the third 
century.” Can we then be surprised that the doctrines 
and acts of Zephyrinus and of Callistus, should not 
have found a prominent place in the annals of the 
Church ? 

If History had been silent with respect to them, 
there would not therefore have been much cause for 
surprise. But, as we have seen, History is not silent. 
And let us proceed to observe that there are also 
various scattered notices in ancient ecclesiastical 
writers, which, though not directly adverting to the 
events recorded in this narrative, yet throw light 
upon them, and are illustrated by them. 

Thus the laxity of discipline with which our Author 


6 Sabellius is called a disciple of Noetus by Philastrius, Heres. 54. 
See also S. Aug. Heeres. 41. 
7 Aug. de Heres. xli. Noetiani difficile ab aliquo sciuntur, Sabelliani 
autem sunt in ore multorum. 

8 Heeret. Fab. Comp. ii. xi. : οὐ βραχὺ τούτων διέμεινε λείψανον. 

9 See above, chap. ix. p. 171: 


O 2 


Vv 


196 “THE LITTLE LABYRINTH. 


taxes the Church of Rome in his own age is described 
in very similar terms by his contemporary, Tertullian.’ 

Again, a passage has been preserved by Eusebius, 
which was written by St. Hippolytus.? It is from 
the “Little Labyrinth,’ a work directed against the 
Heresy of Artemon and Theodotus, who affirmed our 
Blessed Lord to be a mere man. 

These heretics had alleged, that their own opinions 
had been sanctioned by the Church of Rome, “ 224 the 
age of Victor, but that from the time of Zephyrinus, 
his successor, the truth had been corrupted.” 

Here, then, it was affirmed, that, under the Episco- 
pate of Zephyrinus, a change had taken place in the 


,_ doctrine of the Roman Church. 


Now, if (as the Author of our Treatise states) 
Zephyrinus lapsed into Noetianism, which was indeed 
the opposite extreme to the heresy of Artemon, as 
well as contrary to orthodoxy, then indeed there was 
a change in the teaching of Rome, and the truth was 
corrupted from the date of his Episcopate. 

Thus the assertion of Artemon and his followers 
confirms this narrative, and is explained by it. 

But this, it may be said, was an assertion of 
heretics. 

1 The passages may be seen quoted above, p. 94, in the notes to the 
translation of that portion of the ‘‘ Refutation of all Heresies.” 

2 See Euseb. v. 28, and Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. ii. 4, ii. 5. The 
ground of its ascription to St. Hippolytus is that its Author claimed. as 
his own the Book on the Universe, which is known, from the statue of 
Hippolytus, to have been written by him. And the date of the Author 


and his subject and style are confirmatory of this evidence. 
3 ἀπὸ Zepuplvov παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 


ZEPHYRINUS. . 197 


True; but let us observe, How does Hippolytus 
himself meet the charge in the passage quoted by 
Eusebius ?* Does he deny the accusation, by assert- 
ing the orthodoxy of Zephyrinus? If Zephyrinus 
had been sound in faith, and had been acknowledged 
as such, he could hardly have failed to repel so grave 
an impeachment by an indignant appeal to the 
conscience of the Roman Church. But he does not 
thus speak. No; he uses the following words: 
“This charge would” (he allows) “perhaps have 
been probable” *—this is a remarkable confession ; it 
would perhaps have been probable, if something else 
had not been the case. And what was that? Does 
he say,—/f Zephyrinus had not been orthodox, and 
known to be such? No; he urges no such plea, he 
makes no such affirmation ; but, waiving that ques- 
tion, he says, /f.the doctrines of Artemon were not 
contradicted by Scripture, and if the Divinity of 
Christ had not been taught by the prémztive Church. 

He therefore almost seems by implication to admit 
the charge against Zephyrinus, as countenancing an 
innovation in the doctrine of the Church; and this 
admission, if such it be, is explained by the narrative 
before us. And let us add, that, in the extract from 
St. Hippolytus, quoted by Eusebius, there is also an 
invective against an heretical Bishop, Natalius, who 
had lapsed into heresy through avarice, and there is 
an animadversion on and against “the vice of covet- 


4 Euseb. v. 28. 
5 ἦν δ᾽ ἂν τυχὸν πιθατ'ὸν τὸ λεγόμενον. 


Cs 


198 SILENCE OF CHURCH HISTORIANS. 


ousness, as working the ruin of the majority of men,’ * 
a remark which was perhaps suggested by the beset- 
ting sin of Zephyrinus,’ as displayed in the Narrative 
before us. 


We have been reviewing certain passages of ancient 
writers which incidentally reflect light on the Roman 
narrative of our Author, and receive light from it; 
and, in this manner, afford guarantees of our Author’s 
veracity. More such illustrations might be added, 
and will probably suggest themselves to the reader, 
who may find profitable employment in observing 
such undesigned coincidences as these. 

Let us now pass on to notice an objection, which 
has, in all probability, already occurred to his mind. 
How can it be explained, that a narrative of so much 
interest and importance as the present, contained 
in a work composed by so eminent a person as Hip- 
polytus, should have escaped the notice of the world ? 
How may we account for the fact, that it has been 
reserved to a felicitous enterprise in the middle of the 
nineteenth century to call it forth from the grave in 
which it had lain buried for 1600 years? 

One reply, and one only, as it would seem, is to be 
made to this question. It has pleased Divine Provi- 
dence that it should be so. The preservation, the 

6 τῇ πλείστους ἀπολλυούσῃ αἰσχροκερδείᾳ. 

7 Where Zephyrinus is represented as having fallen into heresy 
through avarice. See the Refutation of all Heresies, above, p. 65, 


Zepupivov ἀνδρὸς αἰσχροκερδοῦς, and κέρδει προσφερομένῳ πειθόμενος, 
and above, p. 73, Ζεφυρῖνον ὄντα δωρολήπτην καὶ φιλάργυρον. 


DISCOVERY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. 199 


discovery, and lastly the publication of this Volume, 
demand our grateful acknowledgment. It may not 
be presumptuous to say, that the same Divine Power 
which sealed up the cities of Herculaneum and 
Pompeii in their graves of lava for seventeen cen- 
turies, and then raised them from the tomb and 
revealed them to our sight, that we might see in them 
a faint image of the sudden destruction from fire 
which will one day overtake the World while engaged 
in its business and its pleasures, has had some purpose 
in view, in the burial and resurrection of this interest- 
ing Work. He Who allowed the copies of His Holy 
Word to be destroyed, and Who hid one authentic 
copy in his Sanctuary, may have had some wise 
and benevolent design, while He permitted the other 
transcripts of this work to perish, in concealing one 
copy in safe custody in the monastic cloister of Mount 
Athos. Perhaps, also, it may be said, that the form 
of the question ought to be modified. The real 
ground for surprise is not so much that the other 
transcripts should have perished, as that this one 
Manuscript should have been preserved. 

Of the works written in the third century how 
small a residue survives! Of how many ecclesiastical 
authors, who lived at that period, we have little 
more than the names! Let us cast our eyes over the 
pages of Dr. Routh’s “ Reliquiz Sacre ;” how many 
writers do they present to us of the Antenicene age, 
how many titles of works, and how few are the frag- 
ments there gathered together. In that Sacred 


200 ANTENICENE REMAINS. 


Reliquary, in that spiritual catacomb of the Primitive 
Church (if we may be permitted so to call it), a little 
dust—precious indeed as gold—in a few sepulchral 
urns, is what now remains.® 

The reason of this is clear; the Christians of that 
age were dispersed by the persecutions of Decius and 
Diocletian. Their churches were burnt ; their houses 
were spoiled ; they themselves were swept away by 
fire and sword. The Church was scattered to the 
winds. The rage of Diocletian was specially directed 
against Sacred Books. The Volumes which escaped 
from the perils of those days were like brands 
plucked from the fire. 

If the work upon heresy now in our hands had been 
published in the fifth or the sixth century, when the 
storm of persecution had passed away, then, indeed, we 
might have been surprised that it should not have been 
known to subsequent ages, but now, we repeat, we 
ought perhaps rather to be surprised—that any copy 
remains. 

Let us observe, also, our Author’s position as 
writer. 

He was an Eastern writing in the West. He wrote 
at Rome in the language of Greece. And he pub- 
lished his work when the use of the Greek language 
was becoming less common in Western Christendom. 


8 





— Bpaxd 

σμῆγμα δυσδάκρυτον ἂν- 
τήνορος σποδοῦ γεμί- 
(ov λέβητας εὐθέτους. 


fEschyl. Agam. 430. 


LATIN CHURCH LITERATURE. 201 


As the Church of Rome grew in importance, so the 
language of Rome became more and more the lan- 
guage of the Western Church. In the third century, 
particularly by the influence of Tertullian and Cyprian, 
the Western Church began to possess a Literature of 
its own. Under such circumstances as these, the 
demand for our Author’s work was not likely to be 
large. How little should we now possess of his 
master Irenzeus, if his Work on Heresy had not been 
very early translated into Latin. How very scanty 
are the remains of any early Greek ecclesiastical 
writings that were first published in the West. Ter- 
tullian’s Greek works are lost. A few paragraphs are 
all that remain of Caius. The genuine Hermas sur- 
vives only in Latin.’ Clement of Rome owes the pre- 
servation of his Epistle to its having been sent into 
Greece. Our Author’s Treatise being published in 
the West, but not in the language of the West, would 
soon cease to be transcribed. It would be super- 
seded by other works on Heresy, such as those of 
Philastrius and Augustine, written in Latin, and would 
soon sink into oblivion. 

Besides, let us now revert to the fact already 
mentioned before, as established by the testimony of 
Photius, that a smaller work, written also by Hip- 
polytus, as a Refutation of Heresy, was once in 
existence. (See above, pp. 46—59.) 

Now, let us observe, the newly-recovered Treatise 
on Heresy appears to have been either anonymous, 


9 See Dressel’s edition, p. xliv. 


202 SMALL WORKS EXTINGUISH LARGE ONES. 


or at least not to have retained the name of 
Hippolytus, and it is a much /arger work than the 
biblaridion seen by Photius, and described by him as 
a Treatise of Hippolytus on Heresy. 

It is very probable that the smaller work did much 
to throw the larger work into the shade. 3 

Isaac Casaubon has well shown, in the admirable 
dedication prefixed to his edition of Polybius,’ that 
the making of Epitomes has tended to the destruction 
of the works epitomized. Justin has extinguished 
Trogus. The Excerpta made from Polybius have 
destroyed a great part of Polybius. It is not too 
much to say, that the learned Emperor Constantinus 
Porphyrogenitus innocently and unconsciously perpe- 
trated a massacre of ancient Historians, by ordering 
their works to be abridged. Henceforth no one would 
purchase, no one could transcribe them. The im- 
perial Abstracts superseded the voluminous and costly 
originals." 

If a small Work and a /arge Work, bearing the 
name of the same Author and treating on the same 
subject, were extant in ancient times, the chances of 
vitality were greatly in favour of the smaller. It was 
more portable, and less costly. It was first observed 

1 Casaubon, Dedicatio ad Polyb. p. 18, vol. iii. ed. Amst. 1670. 


Accessit pestis alia, Compendiorum et Epitomarum confectio, quod 
genus scriptionis publice noxium et magnis scriptoribus semper fuit 
exitiosissimum. 

2 **Epitomes ” (says Lord Bacon) ‘‘are the moths of History, which 
have fretted and corroded the sound bodies of many excellent Histories;” 


and, we may add, of many excellent works on Theology and Philo- 
sophy also. 


EUSTATHIUS—CASAUBON—BENTLEY. 203 


by Casaubon* that Eustathius, the Archbishop of 
Thessalonica, in his vast Homeric Commentary, rarely 
quotes from the entire work of Athenzus, but gene- 
rally uses the Epztome of that Author ; and Bentley 
has shown that Eustathius appears never even to have 
seen the entire Athenzus, but a/ways to have used the 
Epitome.* Similarly it may be remarked, that Epi- 
phanius wrote two works on Heresy, his “ Panarium,” 
a very voluminous one, and an Epitome of it, called 
“ Anacephaleosis,” or Recapitulation. St. Augustine 
has left us a work on Heresies, and he refers to 
Epiphanius ; he copied from the “ Recapitulation,” 
but does not appear to have known the “ Pana- 
rium.” ® 

Our Author wrote two treatises on Heresy. The 
smaller, it is probable, superseded the larger, the 
more so because the smaller bore his name prefixed ; 
the larger seems to have been without it. Four 
MSS. have been preserved of the First Book, which 
has been published long ago,’ and we have this 
newly-discovered MS. of seven other Books. But 
not one of these five MSS. bears the name of Hip- 
polytus. 

Hence, it came to pass, that the narrative con- 
tained in the Ninth Book concerning the Roman 


3 Casaubon in Athenzum, i. I. 

4 Bentley, Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 95, ed. Lond. 1777. 

5 ἐς Anacephaleosis sola sine Panario venit in manus Augustini,” say 
the Benedictine Editors, viii. p. 47, ed. Paris, 1837, and see Lardner, i. 


Ρ- 583. 
6 In the Benedictine edition of Origen. See above, p. 18. 


204 EVILS OF EPITOMES. 


Church, did not attract the attention that otherwise 
it would have done. 

Nor is thisall. Not only did a smaller, and separate, 
Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus exist, which inter- 
fered with the circulation of the Larger Work ; but the 
Larger Work itself was epitomized in the Tenth Book: 
and this Tenth Book, being a Recapitulation, had a 
tendency to supplant the other Nine. 

There appears to be good reason for believing, 
that, as St. Augustine used only the Summary of 
Epiphanius, so likewise Theodoret, in his work on 
Heresy, used only this Recapitulation by MHip- 
polytus.’ 

And this Recapitulation, describing the Heresy of 
Callistus (p. 330), does ot style him Lzshop of Rome, 
but merely refers to the narrative of his doings already 
given in the Ninth Book. 

Hence this summary also conduced to the same 
result as the “ Little Book” of Hippolytus. It shel- 
tered Callistus, and helped him to escape from the 
notice of History. 

Further, may we not say, that such a book as this, 
published in the West, and containing such a narrative 
as that in the Ninth Book, concerning the Roman 
Church, was not likely to be regarded with favour in 
the region of Rome, where it was composed and pub- 
lished? It displays a picture, which no member, and 
especially no presbyter or Bishop, of that Church, 
could otherwise regard than with feelings of sorrow 


7 See below, Appendix B, 


SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 205 


and shame. They would not be eager to transcribe 
it, or to purchase copies of it. 

It is remarkable that this work—one of the most 
voluminous written by St. Hippolytus—is ot mentioned 
in the inscription on the Szatwe, which was erected to 
his memory at Rome, and gives a list of the titles of 
his works. 

All who are familiar with the History of ancient 
MSS., know well how soon a book perished, which 
was not often transcribed. And therefore the wonder 
is, not that the other copies of this work were lost, but 
that one copy was saved. Probably an early copy 
of it may have been transported by some friendly 
Greek from the West to the East, and lodged in a cell 
of Mount Athos. And now amore recent transcript 
has come forth from its place of refuge, and has been 
brought by a Greek from the East to the West, and 
it speaks to the World. 


On the whole, it appears, that this Narrative con- 
cerning the Roman Church in the early part of the 
Third Century, was written by St. Hippolytus, a 
scholar of St. Irenzeus,an eminent Bishop, Doctor, 
and Martyr of the Church. He was an eye-witness of 
what he relates,—his relation, therefore, is entitled to 
credit; it is to be received as true. 

No valid objection can be raised against this con- 
clusion from the silence of History. History records 
facts corroborating this narrative, which is itself a 
most credible History, as coming from Hippolytus. 


206 HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. 


And many causes contributed to render this Narra- 
tive less generally known. The f/ace of its original 
publication, the ¢éme of its appearance in the world, 
the character of the Narrative itself, were unfavour- 
able to its circulation. It was antecedent to Church 
History, and Church History was of Eastern growth, 
and knew little of the West. And Persecution soon 
followed the publication of this Narrative, and di- 
verted the mind of the Church in another direction, 
and destroyed much of her Literature. The Work 
in which this Narrative is contained, and in which it 
lies almost obscured, had other literary rivals to con- 
tend with. Other Histories of Heresy, written in 
Latin, superseded it. Its own Author did much to 
supplant it. First, his smaller work, described by 
Photius ; and, secondly, his own Summary in the 
Tenth Book, sufficed for the public demand: the rest 
was rarely transcribed, and was soon forgotten. The 
Heresy of Callistus had vanished from the world, 
and was of little interest to it. Thus the memory of 
him and his doings died away. And, inthe course 
of a few centuries, Callistus, the promoter of heresy, 
became a Saint and a Martyr in the Calendar of the 
Roman Church. ; 


Therefore, the silence of Church Historians —such 
as Eusebius and others, writing in the East, in the 
fourth century, and in later times—suggests to us 
another cause of thankfulness for the remarkable 
discovery of the Treatise in which this Narrative 


ITS USES. 207 


concerning the Roman Church is contained. It 
reminds us how much we have gained by this dis- 
covery. For this Narrative affords to us new and 
effective means for the successful resistance and re- 
futation of novel and dangerous errors, and for the 
firmer establishment and maintenance of Scriptural 
and Catholic Truth. | 


CHAPTER XIL 


Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 


IN the year 1716-18, an edition of the works, or 
fragments of works, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, and 
then known to be extant, was published at Ham- 
burg, by Dr. John Albert FABRICIUS’ of Leipsic, 
in two thin folio volumes; a great part of which was 
occupied with dissertations on the Paschal Chronicle, 
and other subsidiary matter. | 

The works collected by Fabricius, and published 
under the name of Hippolytus, had been attributed 
to him in ancient Manuscripts, and had been, for the 
most part, received as genuine by some eminent 
critics and divines. But others had expressed a 

1S. HIPPOLYTI Episcopi et -Martyris Opera non antea collecta et 
partem nunc primtm e MSS. in lucem edita Grecé et Latiné; accedunt 
Virorum Doctorum Note et Animadversiones. 

The Second Volume, as far as it relates'to St. Hippolytus, derives 
its value principally from the Homily against Noetus, in the Greek 
original, supplied by Montfaucon from a transcript of a MS. in the 
Vatican. In the former Volume the Homily had been given only ina 
Latin Translation by Francis Turrianus. This has been reproduced 
with some additions by P. A, de Lagarde, Lipsiz, 1858. But a com- 


plete, critical edition of St. Hippolytus is a desideratum, which, we may 
hope, will be supplied by one of our Universities. 


WORKS ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 209 


doubt whether any of these writings, ascribed to St. 
Hippolytus, are really his. 

Dr. Mill, the learned Editor of the Greek Testa- 
ment, who had purposed to publish an edition of 
them, has intimated’? an opinion that none of them 
are genuine, except perhaps the work upon Anti- 
christ. H. Dodwell spoke with much hesitation. 
Dr. Grabe was scarcely more confident.6 The 
Benedictine Editors of St. Ambrose seem to have 
thought that all the writings of St. Hippolytus were 
lost.* 

Such being the opinions of some distinguished 
men concerning the writings ascribed to St. Hippo- 
lytus on the authority of some ancient MSS., and 
inserted as such in the edition of Fabricius,*’ no 
arguments have been founded upon them in our 
inquiry concerning the Authorship of the newly- 
discovered “ Refutation of all Heresies.” I have 
abstained from deductions of this kind, as being of a 
precarious character, and liable to exception. And 
the question of Authorship has been examined on 
independent grounds. 

But now at this stage of the investigation, when we 
have been brought by other considerations to the con- 
-clusion,—that the newly-discovered Treatise is rightly 


2 Proleg. in N. T.,n. 655. See Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 499. Dr. 
Dorner (Person of Christ, i. ii. p. 449) is far more favourable. 

3 Note on Bp. Bull, Def. Fid. Niczen. c. 8. These passages were 
collected by Lardner. Bp. Bull, Def. F. N., iii. 8. 4, p. 596, and 
Waterland, iii. p. 102, are in favour of them. 

ὁ Temporum iniquitate perierunt. 

5 See above, chap. iv. 


ἍΥ, 
\ 


210 WORKS ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


ascribed to St. Hippolytus,—it becomes a reasonable 
and interesting subject of inquiry ;— 

Whether the other writings attributed to Hippo- 
lytus on a certain amount of presumptive evidence, 
and inserted in an edition of his works, bear marks 
of being from the same hand as the “ Refutation of 
all Heresies ?” 

If this is found to be the case, then we shall obtain 
a twofold result, | 

1. We shall be confirmed in our previous convic- 
tion that the newly-discovered Treatise is from Hip- 
polytus. And } 

2. We shall also be disposed to give credence to 
the opinion of those who have accepted the other 
works—to which we have referred—as genuine. 

The evidence here applicable is partly external, and 
partly internal. 

I. The Author of the “ Refutation of all Heresies ” 
affirms, that he wrote a Book on the System of the 
Oniverse.® St. Hippolytus wrote a work bearing that 
title, as appears from various testimonies, and par- 
ticularly from the Catalogue on his Statue, where it is 
described as being written “against the Gentiles,’ and 
against Plato, or on the Universe.” It was, in all pro- 
bability, intended to be a Christian System of Cos- 
mogony, contrasted with that propounded by Plato 
in his dialogue bearing a similar title—“ On the 


7 Universe, or Timzus,”* which had been rendered 


® Above, p. 105. 7 πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἢ περὶ τοῦ Παντός. 
8. Platonis Opera, vii. pp. 234 -- 372, ed. Bekker, London, 1826. The 


“ON THE UNIVERSE.” 211 


familiar to the Roman literary world through the 
translation made by Cicero, of which some portions 
remain. 

One very interesting fragment, from a Work having 
this title, “On the Universe,’ and bearing the name 
of St. Hippolytus, was discovered in a MS. in an 
Italian Library, and thence first printed by David 
Heeschel, in a note to Photius,’ and subsequently by 
Stephen Le Moyne, in his Varia Sacra,’ and by 
Fabricius, in his edition’? of Hippolytus.* 

On examining this fragment, we find much resem- 
blance, both of thought and language, between it and 
the latter part of the recently-discovered “ Refutation 
of all Heresies.” * They mutually illustrate each other. 


remains of Cicero’s translation are in his Works, vii. p. 930, and are 
entitled ‘‘ Timzeus, seu de Universo,” ed. Oxon. 1810. 
» * P.923. 1 P. 1119. 2 i. p. 220. 

3 And also (in some respects more correctly) in the Sacra Parallela 
bearing the name of John Damascene, ii. pp. 755. 788, ed. Lequien, 
where a portion of the fragment is attributed to Meletius, and a portion 
to Josephus (Ἰώσηπποϑ). 

4 The subject of both is the condition of departed spirits in another 
world. Some of the parallels are as follows concerning the place and 
punishment of the wicked :— 


Fragments from the work **On the  ‘‘ Refutation of all Heresies, ιν 
Universe,” p. 220. 339. Above, p. 121. 
χωρίον ὑπόγειον ἐν ᾧ φῶς κόσμου ἐκφεύξεσθε ταρτάρου (οφερὸν 
οὐκ ἐπιλάμπει: φωτὸς τούνυν Supa ἀφώτιστον ὑπὸ Λόγου φωνῆς 
τούτῳ τῷ χωρίῳ μὴ καταλάμ- μὴ καταλαμφθὲν, καὶ βρασμὸν 
ποντος.... ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κατεστάθησαν ἀενάου λίμνης γεννήτορος φλο- 
ἄγγελοι φρουροὶ πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστων yos, καὶ ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων 
πράξεις διανέμοντες τὰς τῶν τρόπων κολαστῶν Suma ἀεὶ μένον ἐν 
προσκαίρου; κολάσεις ..... ἐν ἀτειλῇ. 
τούτῳ τόπος ἀφώρισταί Ts λίμνη 
πυρὸς ἀσβέστου. 


ΘΖ 


212 THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 


And thus the proof that the “Refutation” is from 
Hippolytus, strengthens the belief that the Fragment 
has been rightly ascribed to him: and the ascription 
of the Fragment by ancient Manuscripts to St. Hip- 
polytus, corroborates the proof that the Treatise is 


also from him. 
This Fragment is of great value. It describes the 


place of departed Spirits, which it terms “ Hades ;” 


P. 221. of ἄδικοι εἰς ἀριστερὰ 
ἕλκονται ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων κολασ- 
τῶν, μετὰ Blas ὡς δέσμιοι EA- 
κόμενοι, οἷς of ἐφεστῶτες ἄγγελοι 
διαπέμπονται ὀνειδίζοντες καὶ φο- 
βερῷ ὄμματι ἐπαπειλοῦντες, 
τῆς γεέννης ἔγγιον ἔντες τοῦ 
βρασμοῦ ἀδιαλείπτως ὑπακού- 
ουσι. 


Other resemblances between the Treatise ‘‘on the Universe” and 
the ‘‘ Refutation,” indicating their common origin, and, by consequence, 
showing that the author of the ‘‘ Refutation” is Hippolytus, may be 
seen in the notes accompanying the translation inserted above in 
chapter vi. An argument might also be adduced in confirmation of the 
Hippolytean origin of this fragment from its similarity to the language 
of Irenzeus on the same subject. See Iren. ii. 63, 64, on ‘‘ the Bosom 
of Abraham :” ‘‘adignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere, 
etiam ante Fudicium.” 

This Fragment on the Universe (Hippol. Fabric. p. 221) speaks of 
the constituent parts of the dead body, decomposed and dissolved as in 
a crucible (χωνευτήριον), and all its elements, though mouldered into 
dust or scattered to the winds, to be gathered again together at the 
Resurrection. This passage has been printed among the fragments of 
St. Irenzeus (p. 468, Grabe), whence, in one place, it may be emended. 
The Author is speaking of the union of the body with the soul in this 
world, and their reunion in the next: and he compares that union to the 
marriage tie, in the mutual affection which the body and soul ought to 
have for each other: ψυχὴ συγχαρήσεται καθαρὰ καθαρῷ παραμείνασα, @ 
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ viv δικαίως cvrodevovou.—For νῦν δικαίως the MS. of 


Irenzeus supplies the beautiful words νυμφίῳ υικαίῳ. 


FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. 218 


and it portrays the condition of the Souls, both of 
the wicked and the righteous, on their separation 
from the body by death. The former, it is there 
said, pass immediately into a state of misery, in which 
they suffer great pain, and have gloomy forebodings 
of the still greater and interminable woe and 
shame to which they will be consigned in Hell, at the 
general Resurrection and last Judgment, when their 
bodies will be reunited to them, and when they will 
receive their full and final sentence from the lips of 
their Everlasting Judge. 

The Author of this work teaches also the following 
doctrine concerning the spirits of the righteous on 
their deliverance from the burden of the flesh. They 
then pass, he says, into a place of rest and refresh- 
ment, which is called “ Abraham’s Bosom,’* they 
there join the society of other holy and blessed 
spirits, and enjoy a foretaste of the still greater 
bliss of which they will have a full fruition after the 
General Resurrection and Universal Judgment, in 
the glories of heaven, and which will be for ever 
theirs. 

This Fragment is of a great doctrinal importance. 
It contains— 

1. A protest against the doctrine of those who 
imagine a sleep of the soul, in the interval between 
Death and Judgment. 


5 The doctrine and language of the Eighth Book of the Constitutions, 
cap. 41 (p. 423, ed. Coteler.), bears much resemblance to that of our 
Author; thus another proof arises, that portions of the Eighth Book 
are derived from Hippolytus. See above, p. 144, note. 


214 THE MILLENNIUM. 


2, A no less clear warning against the Romish 
Doctrine of Purgatory. 

3. A refutation of a popular error, which supposes 
that the sowls of the righteous, immediately on the 
departure from the Jody, are admitted to the en- 
joyment of full felicity in eaven, and which thus 
sets at nought the transactions of the general Resur- 
rection, and the Universal Judgment of quick and dead. 

4. A proof that the notion of a Millennial reign of 
Christ on earth before the Resurrection, had no place 
in our Author’s system. This isthe more observable, 
because St. Hippolytus belonged to a theological 
school—that of Ireneus—in which Millenarian 
opinions had previously shown themselves ;° and it 
may therefore be concluded, that careful examination 
of Scripture, and subsequent discussion and closer 
scrutiny of the subject, under the influence of St. 
Dionysius of Alexandria (see above, p. 178), had 
deterred him from adopting those opinions. Perhaps 
his master, Irenzeus, had seen reason to revise his 
own sentiments in this respect after the publication 
of his work on Heresy, in which they are broached. 
However this may be, it appears that those opinions 
gradually died away. : 

δ See on Irenzeus, v. 34, Baron Bunsen well observes, p- 256, that 
St. Hippolytus did not fall into another error of his master Irenzeus, 
2.6. concerning the duration of our Lord’s ministry, which Irenzeus 
imagined to have extended beyond His fortieth year (Iren. ii. 39, 
ed. Grabe, p. 161). Lumper, who has noticed this, well adds that 
St. Hippolytus did more than this. St. Hippolytus (in Daniel, num. iv.) 


says that our Lord suffered in His thirty-third year. See Lumper, viii. 
177. As to Millenarianism, cp. below, p. 220. 


“ον THE UNIVERSE.” 215 


5. A testimony to the Doctrine of the Church, 
concerning the state of departed souls, as declared 
in our own liturgical formularies, particularly in 
our Burial Office, and in the writings of our ablest 
Divines,’ 

The Writer also speaks clearly*® concerning the 
Divinity and Proper Personality of Christ, as the 
Word of God, and Judge of Quick and Dead. “All 
men, both just and unjust, will be brought before the 
Divine Word: for to Him hath the Father given all 
judgment, and He Himself, executing the counsel of 
the Father, is coming as Judge, Whom we call Christ, 
God Incarnate.” 

In referring to this Fragment, “On the Universe,” 
we feel no small satisfaction in the assurance, that we 
there read the words of one of the greatest Doctors of 
Antiquity, St. Hippolytus. 

Another important Fragment from the same work, 
“On the Universe,” is contained in a Manuscript in 
the Bodleian Library, but was not printed by Fabri- 
cius. It will be found at the close of the present 
Volume ;° and the reader will see that it resembles 
the latter portion of the “ Refutation of all Heresies.” 


7 See, for instance, Bishop Bull’s two learned Sermons on the State 
of the Soul after Death.. Sermons II. and III., vol. ii. pp. 23—82, ed. 
Burton, Oxf. 1827. Compare also Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryp. § 5. 
Tertullian. de Resurr. § 43. 

8 Ap. Joh. Damascen. ii. p. 775. πάντες δίκαιοι καὶ ἄδικοι ἐνώπιον 
τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ἀχθήσονται" τούτῳ yap ὁ Πατὴρ τὴν πᾶσαν κρίσιν δέδωκε, 
καὶ αὐτὸς βουλὴν Πατρὸς ἐπιτελῶν Κριτὴς παραγίνεται, ὃν Χριστὸν προσ- 
αγορεύομεν Θεὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. 


9 Below, Appendix A. 


216 ‘©THE LITTLE LABYRINTH.” 


It also contains a valuable statement of the Doc- 
trine of Repentance ; and shows that St. Hippolytus 
did not agree with Novatian in that respect. 


II. Let us now advert to another Fragment, not 
included in the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius. 

The Author of a Work, which was written in the 
age of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, against those 
heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ, and which 
was called the “Lzttle Labyrinth,” referred in that 
work, as we have seen (chap. iii.), to the Treatise 
“On the Universe,” as written by himself. | 

An Extract from the “ Labyrinth” has been pre- 
served by Eusebius,! and, as we have also seen, it 
reflects light on the Narrative concerning the Church 
of Rome, contained in the newly-discovered Treatise. 
We find, also, some similarity of manner between 
that fragment and the relation just mentioned. 

The fragment is itself a narrative ; it concerns the 
state of Ecclesiastical affairs, during the Episcopate 
of Zephyrinus ; and it may be regarded as introduc- 
tory to the history contained in the Ninth Book of 
the “ Refutation of all Heresies.” It bears a’ strong 
resemblance to the “ Refutation” in the general view 
that it takes of Heresies. It represents them as de- 
rived from ancient schools of Heathen Philosophy ; 


' Euseb. v. 28, and in Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. ii. 129—134. See 
there p. 143, where Dr. Routh says, ‘‘probabiliter contendere quis 
possit opus, de quo agimus, Parvum Labyrinthum, ascribendum 
Llippolyto esse.” Dr. Routh was, I believe, the first to ascribe the 
Labyrinth to Hippolytus ; and time has shown the soundness of his 
conjecture, 


THEOLOGY OF HIPPOLYTUS. 217 


and affirms, that they owe much more to the teaching 
of the Portico, the Lyceum, and the Academy, than 
to that of the Scriptures and the Church. 

There is also a resemblance between the diction of 
this fragment and the works of Irenzeus.? 

In a doctrinal point of view it is valuable, as af- 
firming (in opposition to the assertions of the Theo- 
dotian heretics), that the Divinity of Christ, the Word 
of God, is taught in Holy Scripture, and had been 


2 E.g. γραφὰς θείας ῥεραδιουργήκασι, sc. heeretici. Compare St. Trensoug) 
Preface, ῥαδιουργοῦντες τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

Let me take this opportunity of noticing a passage in the Procemium 
or Preface of St. Irenzeus which appears to have caused perplexity. He 
is speaking of the strange tenets of the Valentinian Gnostics, which he 
promises to disclose to his reader. ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην μηνῦσαί σοι τὰ 
τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια ἃ οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν 
ἐγκέφαλον ἘΞΕΠΤΥΚΑΣΙΝ, ‘The latter phrase has not been explained. 
It has been thought to mean men who have not sfzt out their brains (by 
sneezing), The word ἐξεπτύκασιν is corrupt, and ought, probably, to 
be corrected into EEEIMTIKASIN (from ἐκπτίσσω), and the sense would 
be, “1 have thought it necessary to expound to you these portentous 
and profound mysteries, which all men do not comprehend, because 
(forsooth, to adopt their expression) men have not sifted their brains.” 
St. Irenzeus alludes to the Gnostic notion derived from the ancient 
medical theories that the brain is separated from the nasal organs by a 
thin membrane like a steve, which is called by physiologists ‘‘ lamina 
cribrosa” (see Plin. N. H. xi. 49. Aristot. Hist. Animal. i. 16, de part. 
animal. ii. 7, quoted by Stieren), and that in order that the intellectual 
faculties may be rightly exercised, the brain must be cleansed (what 
Shakspeare called finely do/ted) by the discharge of phlegmatic humours 
through this nasal membrane as through a sieve, and thus the mind be 
clarified, and be competent to understand subtle speculations. This 
they called ἐκπτίσσειν or διαπτίσσειν τὸν ἐγκέφαλον, to sift the brain. 
The same correction is to be made in Aélian. Hist. Animal. xvii. 31, 
ἐκπτυσσόμενον ἄερα (i. 6. the air sifted out), Perizon. p. 949, where the 
Medicean MS. has very nearly preserved the true reading ἐκπτισσόμενον. 
It has ἐκπτισόμενον. The false reading διαπτήσαντες λεπτὰ for δια- 
πτίσαντες still remains in some editions of Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. 
ix, 27, 


218 HIS CHRONICLE. 


continually and constantly maintained by the Church 
from the first.* 

This Fragment—not inserted in the edition pub- 
lished by Fabricius—ought to find a place in future 
collections of the works of St. Hippolytus. 


III. Let us now pass on to another work ascribed 
to St. Hippolytus. 

This is a CHRONICLE ; or, rather, a Chronological 
Epitome, which exists (as far as is known) only in. 
Latin, and was first printed at Ingolstadt, in 1602,‘ 
from two Paris Manuscripts ; whence it was trans- 
ferred into the edition of Fabricius.’ It does not 
bear the name of Hippolytus. But since it is appa- 
rent from internal evidence, that it was composed 
in the age of Alexander Severus (when Hippolytus 
flourished), and is continued to A.D. 235, and since 
the Catalogue on the Statue of Hippolytus attests 
that he had composed such a work; therefore it 
has been attributed to him by some learned persons.° 

3 E.g. ἀδελφῶν ἐστι γράμματα πρεσβύτερα τῶν Βίκτορος χρόνων ἐν 
οἷς ἅπασι θεολογεῖται ὃ χριστός" ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ δαὶ ἀδελφῶν 
ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν ΛΟΓῸΝ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ 
ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. 

4 In Canisii Antiquarum Lectionum, tom. ii. p. 179. It was also 
printed by Labbe, Bibl. Nov. MS. p. 298, Paris, 1657, from a third MS. 

* 1. pp. 49—59. 

δ᾽ It is entitled by Fabricius ‘‘ Chronicon Anonymi quod ad 5. Hipfo- 
lytum viri docti referunt, certé scriptum illa etate,” p. 49. Bp. Pearson, 
Dissert. Posthuma, i. cap. x. ὃ 1, calls the author ‘‘quidam anonymus.” 
So also Dodwell, Diss. c. xiv. ὃ xix., doubts whether it is by§JS. Hippo- 
lytus. Bianchini argues that it cannot be a work of Hippolytus from 


certain discrepancies between it and the Paschal Canon on the Statue. 
Dissert. cap. 111, § vii. 


HIS WORKS ON PROPHECY. 219 


The discovery of the present Treatise appears to 
remove all doubt on this subject. 

Our Author informs us’ that he had written a chrono- 
logical work, and refers his readers to it. He then © 
introduces an abstract of his chronological system, in 
regard to Jewish History. Suffice it to say, that the 
details in the Treatise harmonize in language and 
substance with those contained in the Chronicle.® 
They seem to be from the same hand. 

Thus, then, the recently-discovered “ Refutation ” 
strengthens the evidence already existing, that the 
work in question is by Hippolytus.° 


IV. Another writing, attributed in Manuscript 
copies to Hippolytus, and inserted in the edition of 


Fabricius, comes next under consideration. It is 


I] 


entitled, “ Concerning Antichrist. Such a work was 


written by St. Hippolytus, as we know from the 
testimony of St. Jerome” and Photius ;* Andreas, of 
Cesarea, and Arethas, refer to it in their comments 
on the Apocalypse.* 


ΦΈΡ. 338; 81: 

8 Compare Refutation, pp. 331-333, with the Chronicon in 
Fabricius’ edition of Hippolyti Opera, i. pp. 50—53. 

9 Henry Dodwell supposes, with good reason, that the Chronology 
of St. Hippolytus with regard to the succession of Roman Bishops is 
émbodied in the work of Syncellus, Dissertat. de Rom. Pont. Success. 
Cc. xiv. 

1]. p. 4. It was first published by Marquard Gudius, from two 
French MSS., at Paris, 1661, and after him by Combefisius, in a Catena 
on Jeremia ii. p. 449. 

2 De Viris Ilustr. 61. 3 Phot. Bibl. Cod. 202. 

4 On the Revelation, xii. 18 ; xiii. I ; xviii. 10. 


220 IRENZAUS AND HIPPOLYTUS. 


On comparing this work with the Treatise on 
Heresy, we see good reason to believe that they are 
from the same hand ;° and, therefore, it being granted 
‘that our Treatise is by Hippolytus, we are confirmed 
in the persuasion, that the Work on Antichrist is 
from him; and the ascription of a Work on Anti- 
christ to Hippolytus by Ancient Authors, Jerome and 
Photius, and of ¢#zs particular Work on Antichrist to 
him by ancient MSS., is a further proof that the 
“ Refutation of all Heresies” is by Hippolytus. 

There is also considerable similarity in some 
passages of this Work to certain sections of the 
Work on Heresy by St. Irenzeus, the master of St. 
Hippolytus, especially in those portions where our 
Author treats on the Apocalyptic prophecies.6 Upon 
these, however, the reader may remark, that the 
Author appears studiously to have avoided any 
approximation to Millenarian tenets, favoured in 
some degree by his predecessor and teacher, St. 
Ireneus. Indeed, he inculcates doctrines wholly at 
variance with Millenarian notions.’ What has been 


5 E.g. Work on Antichrist. Refutation of ali Heresies. 

Ῥ. 5, 5. 2. μὴ πλανῶ, used pa- p. 336. 18. μὴ πλανῶ, used pa- 
renthetically. renthetically. 

p- 5, c. 2. Description of An-  p. 337. 46. Description of An- 
cient Prophecy; also p. 16, cient Prophecy. 
cap. 31. 

p- 5, c 3. Adyos ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ pp. 336. 44. Adyos ὃ Θεοῦ, ὃ 
Παῖς. πρωτόγονος Πατρὸς Παῖς. 


Ῥ. 6, c. 3. εἷς 6 τοῦ Θεοῦ Παῖς. 


δ Compare p. 25, c. 50, on the name of the Beast in the Apocalypse, 
with Irenzeus v. 30. 


7 See particularly cap. 44—46, on the Two Advents of Christ, and 


HIS WORKS ON PROPHECY. 221 


already said® with regard to the Author of the 
Treatise on the Universe, in this respect is applicable 
here. 

This Treatise was not a public address, but was 
transmitted privately to a certain Theophilus, and 
was accompanied with expressions of reverential fear,’ 
and with a strict charge of secrecy, reserving and 
limiting it to the use of holy and faithful men, and 
prohibiting any communication of it to Unbelievers. 

One reason for such caution appears to have been 
as follows. The Author identifies the Fourth Mo- 
narchy of Daniel with the Roman Empire ;’ and he 
also identifies the Babylon of the Apocalypse with 
the City of Rome.? And, since the Prophecies of 
Daniel and the Apocalypse, as he interprets them, 
describe the utter destruction of the Fourth Mo- 
narchy, and portend the total extinction of the mys- 
tical Babylon, his expositions would have been very 
obnoxious to such Roman readers as did not look 
with pious hope beyond the subversion of the Roman 
Empire, and the fall of the Roman City, to the full 
and final victory of Christ.’ 


cap. 64, on the Second Advent, represented as contemporaneous with 
the General Resurrection, and Judgment, and Conflagration of the 
Earth. 

8 Above, p. 212. 

9 ¢, 20, ταῦτά σοι μετὰ φόβου μεταδίδομεν. 

1 P, 14, c. 25; p. 16, c. 32. θηρίον τέταρτον---τίνες οὗτοι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ 
Ῥωμαῖοι, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὃ σιδηρὸς, ἣ νῦν ἑστῶσα βασιλεία; 

P. 16, c. 34. ἤδη κρατεῖ σιδηρός. 

> fib, 776: 

3 Thus incidentally the author explains St. Paul’s reserve in 2 Thess. 
ii. 6. May I refer to my note on that passage ἢ 


222 HIS WORKS ON PROPHECY. 


Photius, in his Comment‘ on this Treatise of St. 
Hippolytus on Antichrist, remarks that it resembled 
the Exposition by the same Author of the Book of 
Daniel, and that both writings evinced somewhat of 


4 Photius, Cod. 203, prefers the exposition of Theodoret to that of 
Hippolytus ; from whom, however, Theodoret appears to have derived 
benefit. Such persons as may be disposed to renounce the exposition 
from events for that of the Fathers, with regard to prophecies 
unfulfilled in their age, and would thus elevate the Fathers into 
Prophets, may be invited to reflect on the judicious observations of 
Photius, contained in his article on this Treatise of Hippolytus. And 
such persons as may be tempted to imagine that they can form 
.a harmonious system of interpretation from the works of the Fathers 
with respect to such Prophecies as had of been fulfilled in their age, 
may read with benefit the article in Photius (Cod. 203), on the Exposi¢ 
tion of Daniel by Theodoret, as contrasted with that of St. Hippolytus. 
‘** Many are the discrepancies between them,” says Photius. No ‘‘ school 
of prophetic interpretation ” can be formed from such elements as these. 
And they who appeal to the Fathers for guidance in such matters, do 
much to invalidate the authority of the Fathers in regard to prophecies — 
which had been fulfilled in their age; and also in matters of Christian 
‘doctrine, where their authority is of great weight. They thus also 
forfeit the privilege which Providence has given to themselves of living 
in a later age, and of reading prophecy by the light of history. Time 
is the best Interpreter of Prophecy.: 

5 Cod. 202. Fabricius appears to have been led in one instance to 
mistake the one for the other. He quotes St. Germanus, Archbishop 
of Constantinople, asserting that Hippolytus supposed that Antichrist 
would appear in the five hundredth year after Christ :* and he imagines 
that St. Germanus is quoting from the Treatise on Antichrist. No such 
assertion, however, occurs in that Treatise. But this assertion was con- 
tained in the Exposition on Daniel by Hippolytus, as appears from 
Photius, Cod. 202, who adds that Hippolytus reckoned 5500 from the 
Creation to Christ. M. Bunsen infers that Hippolytus wrote the 
Treatise in a time of peace, because he placed the appearance of Anti- 
christ at about 300 years after his own time. 

But, with all deference be it said, this reasoning seems to be 





* The MS. of St. Germanus has ἐξακισχιλιοστῷ πεντακοσίῳ ἔτει : 
but the true reading, I conceive, is ἐκ χριστοῦ πεντακοσίῳ ἔτει. The 
reason of this will appear from what is said in the note above. 


THEOLOGY OF HIPPOLYTUS. ~ 223 


a fervid and confident spirit, in the speculative 
attempts there made to determine ow and when the 
unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture qwozld be fulfilled. 
But as far as this Treatise records the judgment of 
the Church concerning the true interpretation of pro- 
phecies which had been fulfilled in that age, it is of 
great value, particularly if it be supposed, which 
appears to be most probable, to have come from the 
pen of Hippolytus, the scholar of Irenzus, and a 
Bishop of the Roman Church. If this is a work of 
Hippolytus, then this Treatise is also of importance 
to Sacred Philology. For it cites a large portion of 
the Apocalypse. In these citations we have perhaps ° 
the readings of the manuscript used by Hippolytus, 
the third in order from St. John.’ 

It is also an important witness of primitive doctrine. 

It teaches, in the most explicit manner, the Di- 
vinity and Humanity of Christ, the Word of God,® 
by Whom we, says the Author, have received the 


Regeneration effected through the Holy Ghost? It | 


fallacious. Hippolytus placed the appearance of Antichrist at A.D. 500, 


because he supposed with many of the Fathers, that the world would ~ 


last for six millenary periods (cf. ad S, Iren. v. 28), which, according 


to his chronological calculations, would have expired then. 

6 ** Perhaps,”—because the reading in Hippolytus may have been 
altered to suit a text of the Apocalypse. 

7 In Rev. xvii. 8 this MS. had καὶ παρέσται, and Rev. xviii. 5 
ἐκολλήθησαν. Both these readings have disappeared from most recent 
MSS., and from many editions; but they are preserved in the 
Alexandrine MS., and appear to be the true readings, and have been 
restored by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others as such. 

8 c, 61. χριστὸν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόμενον. 

δου, 


224 ON HOLY BAPTISM. 


represents the Church as a ship tossed on the waves 
of this world, agitated by storms, but never wrecked, 
having CHRIST as her Pilot, and the Cross of Christ 
as her mast, and the Word of God as her rudder, and 
the precepts of Christ as her anchor, and the laver of 
regeneration with her, and above her the Divine 
Author of these blessed privileges, the Holy Spirit, 
breathing as the wind upon her sails, and wafting 
the Vessel in its course to the harbour of eternal 
peace.’ 


V. Another Work ascribed to St. Hippolytus is a 
Homily on “the ? THEOPHANIA,” or Baptism of our 
Blessed Lord. This is a Sermon addressed to Cate- 
chumens, inviting them to Baptism. It represents to 
them, in glowing language, the privileges to which 
they would be introduced through that Holy Sacra- 
ment, and the blessings to which they would be led 
by the Divine Love, if they lived a life corresponding 
to their baptismal obligations. This interesting and 
beautiful Homily has some points of resemblance to 
the exhortation at the close of the newly-discovered 
Treatise. But there is, in one respect, a wide differ- 
ence between them. The Homily was addressed to 
those who had been previously trained under Christian 
Instruction. But the peroration of the “ Refutation 


1 See the notes on this passage above, pp. 126—128. 

* Hippolytus, ed. Fabric. i. 261. A recent critic translates this title 
“a (baptismal) Sermon on Zfiphany,” which conveys an incorrect idea. 
On the word, θεοφάνεια, see Casaubon, Exc. Baron. ii. sect. xi. 


HIS ADDRESS TO 7. HE HEATHEN. 225. 


of all Heresies” was addressed to those who had had 
no such previous training. 

The former is to Catechumens: the latter to 
Heathens. This difference of occasion has neces- 
sarily produced a difference of treatment of the 
subject in these two compositions respectively ; as is 
sufficiently evident from the fact that in the last two 
pages of the Homily there are twenty-five direct 
quotations from Holy Scripture, but in the peroration 
to the “ Refutation of all Heresies” there is not one. 
The reader, therefore, will not expect to find in that 
peroration an exposition of Christian Doctrine. 

It has, however, been called by some* “the Con- 
fession of Faith” of St. Hippolytus. 

But this is an unhappy appellation. It might ° 
rather be termed his “ Apology.” We should fall 
into a great error, and do much injustice to St. Hip- 
polytus and his cause, if we were to judge him and 
his Creed from a speech made to Idolaters. 

The Homily on the Theophania was supplied to 
Fabricius, for his edition, by Roger Gale, from a 

3 By M. Bunsen, who, it is to be regretted, has not attended to these 
considerations. M. Bunsen’s Fourth Letter, from p. 139 to p. 195, 


treats of this peroration to the Heathen, and bears the following title : 
‘* Hippolytus’ own Confession.” 

It is also to be deplored that M. Bunsen, in framing a ‘“ Confession 
of Faith” for St. Hippolytus, has paid little or no regard to the various 
heresies which Hippolytus refutes in his Treatise on Heresies. From 
the many-sided opposition of Hippolytus to the different forms in which 
heterodoxy showed itself in the Heresies before and in his own times 
(e.g. in the Heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion, Theodotus, Apelles, Noetus, 
and Callistus), his own orthodoxy comes forth 1 in a very precise and 


definite form. 


Q 


226 ON HOLY BAPTISM. 


MS. in the valuable library of his father, Thomas 
Gale.* 

It is ascribed in that MS. to St. Hippolytus, and 
this ascription appears to be confirmed by the in- 
ternal evidence, particularly by its” similarity in 
thought and diction to the _ recently-discovered 
Treatise.” Thus it may be regarded as supplemen- 
tary to that other address, and may aid us in ascer- 
taining from St. Hippolytus what he himself would 
have recognized as his own “ Confession of Faith.” 

In corroboration of this assertion, let me adduce 
some paragraphs from the conclusion of this Homily. 

Here we have a document, among the Patristic 
remains of the Antenicene age, which states in a 
short compass and clear terms the doctrine of the 
primitive Church concerning the Sacrament of Holy 
Baptism. 

The Author is speaking to the candidates for Bap- 
tism, and thus expresses himself: “Give me your 
attention, I beseech you with earnestness, for I desire 
to recur to the fount of life, and to see the well-spring 
of healing flowing forth. The Father of Immortality 
sent forth His immortal SON and WorD into the 
World. He came to wash man with Water and the 
Holy Ghost, and having regenerated him to incorrup- 3 
tion of soul and body, breathed into us the breath of 

4 It is now among the Gale MSS. in the Library of Trin. Coll., 
Cambridge, where it is marked O. 5. 36. Cf. Fabric. Hippol. i. 
p. 261. 


ὁ Some evidences of this may be seen in the Notes tothe Translation 
above, chap. vi. p. 122, 123. 


RESURRECTION AND LIFE. 227 


Life, having clothed us with the armour of Immor- 
tality. If then man has become immortal, he will 
also be divinized ;° and if he is divinized through 
Water and the Holy Spirit after the Regeneration 
of the baptismal font, he will also be fellow-heir with 
Christ after the Resurrection from the dead..... 
Come, therefore, and be born again to the adoption 
of God.” 

He then warns his hearers not to delude them- 
selves by imagining that these baptismal privileges 
can be enjoyed otherwise than by a renunciation of 
sin, and by holiness of life. “Come to the adoption 
of sonship to God. ... . And how? you may ask. 
ἐν νιν As follows—If you do not commit adultery, or 
murder, or idolatry.’ If you are not the slave of 
pleasure, if pride is not master over you, if you wipe 
off the stain of impurity, and cast off the burden of 
iniquity. If you put off the armour of Satan and 
put on the breastplate of Faith; as saith Isaiah, 
Wash ye and seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge 


6 ἔσται καὶ @eds, εἰ SE Θεὸς δι᾽ See Refutatio, p. 239 (above, 
ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μετὰ chap. vi. p. 128), γέγονας γὰρ 
τὴν τῆς κολυμβήθρας ἀναγέννησιν Θεὸς... σοῦ πτωχεύει Θεὸς, καὶ 
γίγνεται, καὶ συγκληρονόμος χρισ:- σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ. 


τοῦ εὑρίσκεται. 

7 A negative argument against Infant Baptism has been derived by 
some from the silence of St. Hippolytus in respect to it. But, it must 
be remembered, St. Hippolytus had to deal mainly with adult idolaters. 
Nothing can be clearer than that he dates the origin of spiritual life from 
_ Baptism; and therefore, according to his teaching, they who have the 
charge of infants and children are bound to bring them to Baptism, if 
they would not have the blood of their souls required of themselves by 
Him Who instituted Baptism as the laver of the new Birth. 

Peles 110; 


δ᾽2 


228 AGAINST NOETUS. 


the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, let 
us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be 
as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they 
be red as crimson, they shall be as wool, tf ye be willing 
and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. 

“You see, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the 
purifying efficacy of Baptism. For he who descends 
with faith into the laver of Regeneration renounces 
the Devil, and dedicates himself to Christ ; he rejects 
the Enemy, and confesses that CHRIST is GoD. He 
puts off slavery, and puts on sonship. He comes 
forth from Baptism bright as the sun, and shedding 
forth the rays of righteousness ; and, what is most of 
all, he comes forth a son of God, and fellow-heir with 
CHRIST. To HIM be Glory and Power, with His all- 
holy and good and life-giving SPIRIT, now and 
ever. Amen.” 


VI. Another important document for ascertaining 
the Doctrine of its Author is found in the Homily 
against Noetianism, contained in the works of St. 
Hippolytus. This Homily is ascribed to him in the 
ancient Vatican MS., from which it was transcribed 
by Montfaucon, and first printed by Fabricius.’ It 
has generally been received as his, and the points of 
resemblance in thought and language, between that 
Homily and the Ninth Book of the recently-discovered 
“Refutation of all Heresies,’ are so numerous and 
striking, that they greatly strengthen the proof, that 

9. S. Hippol. Opera, ii. 5—zo. 


AGAINST NOETUS. 229 


they are from the same person,—and that this person 
is Hippolytus.". This homily has most appropriately 
been included by the late learned Dr. Routh in his 
valuable collection of the shorter writings of Eccle- 
siastical Authors. 

The whole of this homily is so valuable and in- 
structive, as a witness of Christian teaching in the 
earlier part of the third century, that it would be 
difficult to make extracts from it. But as it has 
unhappily been alleged by some? that Hippolytus 
has not spoken clearly on the doctrine of the Blessed 
Trinity, and as it has been thence inferred that this 
doctrine was not taught in the Christian Church in 
his age, it may not be amiss to indicate one or two 
passages relevant to that subject. 

Having stated that Christ is the Word by Whom 
all things were made,® and having quoted the begin- 
ning of St. John’s Gospel in proof of this assertion, 
he proceeds to say, that we “behold the Word Incar- 
nate in Him; we understand the Father by Him; 
we believe the Son; we worship the Holy Ghost.” 
Hippolytus then encounters the argument of the Noe- 
tians, who charged the orthodox with belief in two 
Gods because they maintained that the Father is 
God, and the Son God. Hippolytus replies, “I will 
not speak of two Gods,* but one God, and two Persons. 

1 Portions of this Homily have been adopted by Epiphanius in his 
article on Noetus. Heres. lvii. pp. 479 —489. 

2 By M. Bunsen, i. pp. 297. 302—304. 


3 S. Hippol. in Noet. c. 12, ed. Fabric. ii. p. 14. 
* ¢.-¥4. 


280 ON THE BLESSED TRINITY. 


For the Father is one; but there are two Persons, 
because there is also the Son, and the third Person is 
the Holy Ghost.’ The Father is over all things ; 
the Son through all things; the Holy Ghost in all 
things. We cannot otherwise acknowledge one God, 
except we believe really in the Father, and in the 
Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” And he adds that 
“the Word of God, Christ, having risen from the dead, 
gave therefore this charge to His disciples,’ Go and 
teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, show- 
ing that whosoever omits one of these, does not fully’ 
glorify God. For through this TRINITY the Father 
is glorified. The Father willed, the Son wrought, the 
Holy Ghost manifested. All the Scriptures proclaim 
115. And having in an eloquent peroration,—one of 
the most eloquent that are extant in ancient homilies, 
—described the human acts and sufferings, as well as 
the divine miracles, of Christ, he concludes with 
saying,’ This is He “ Who ascended on a cloud into 
heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and 
will come again to judge the quick and dead. This 
is He Who is God, and Who was made Man for our 
sakes, to whom the Father subjected all things. To 
Him be Glory and Power with the FATHER and the 


5 Compare also ibid. cap. 9: ‘* Whatsoever the Holy Scriptures 
declare, let us learn; and as the Father wills to be believed, let us 
believe ; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, so let us glorify Him ; 
and as He wills to give the Holy Spirit, so let us receive.” 

6 Matt. xxviii. 19. 

δ; 15; 


HIS COMMENTARIES. 231 


HOLY SPIRIT, in the Holy Church, now and for ever. 
Amen,” 


VII. Fragments of other works of St. Hippolytus, 
especially from his Commentaries on portions of Holy 
Scripture, are inserted in the edition of Fabricius; 
and additions to them have been made by the learned 
labours of Cardinal Mai, and have been reprinted in the 
edition of some of the writings of Hippolytus by 
Paul Antony de Lagarde. 


Sufficient has now been said to show the value of 
the newly-discovered Treatise, with regard to those 
other Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.* The 
learned World has been hitherto divided and in doubt 
concerning the genuineness of those Works. Hence- 
forth these doubts may be considered as at an end. 
If the newly-discovered Treatise is generally received 
as the work of Hippolytus (as there is little doubt it 
will be), then it will also be allowed that those other 
works were rightly ascribed to him. And the inde- 
pendent ascription of those other works to him 
strengthens the conviction that this Treatise is his. 

The recent discovery, therefore, of this MS. in the 


8 It has not been the design of this Chapter to notice all the works 
assigned to Hippolytus ; particularly the work ‘‘ De Consummatione 
Mundi,” printed by Fabricius in an Appendix to the First Volume 
among ‘‘ Dubia et Supposititia,” is not mentioned here. It appears to 
have been attributed to Hippolytus, because it is formed in a great 
measure from his work on Antichrist ; but it contains many evidences 
of a different hand and a later age. See the authorities in Ceillier, ii. 
p. 368. Lumper, viii. 109. 


282 DOCTRINAL VALUE OF HIS WORKS. 


Monastery of Mount Athos, is not only valuable in 
itself, but it adds to our former possessions. It is an 
accession of a new treasure, and a recovery of what 
was old. It does, in a considerable degree, for Hip- 
polytus, what was done for his mythical namesake, 
who, after he had been torn in pieces, was again 
brought to light and life.’ It restores Hippolytus to 
himself.’ 

Thus, also, a gain has accrued to the cause of 
Christianity. Henceforth we may appeal to these 
works with confidence, as authentic witnesses of the 
Doctrine and Discipline of the Christian Church, in, 
the earlier part of the Third Century after Christ. 

9 Virg. vii. 761. 

1 It is to be hoped that a new and complete Edition of the remains 
of St. Hippolytus will be undertaken, and be accompanied by an 
edition of the works of his forerunner and master, St. Irenzeus, 


with supplements and amendments, by the aid of the newly-discovered 
ἐς Refutation of all Heresies.” 


CHAPTER ΧΙ, 


On ancient Lists of the Works of St. Hippolytus. 


THE Statue of St. Hippolytus discovered in Rome in 
the year 1551 near the Church of St. Lawrence, on 
the road to Tivoli, exhibits in a fragmentary condition, 
the earliest extant catalogue of his works.’ It is 
engraved in the frontispiece of the present volume. 
The following is a representation of it in cursive 
characters, with some words [in brackets] supplied 
by conjecture. 
I [πρὸς τοὺς lovda]ious: 
[περὶ παρθε]νίας" 
[εἰς τοὺς ψ]αλμούς" 
[εἰς τὴν ἐϊγγαστρίμυθον' 
5 [ἀπολογία] ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάνην 
εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως" 
περὶ χαρισμάτων 
10 ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις" 
χρονικῶν" 
1 The Inscription is given in the Berlin Corpus Inscriptionum 
Greecarum (ed. A. Kirchhoff, 1857), iv. 8613. Gruter, 140. Fabricius, 


Opera S. Hippolyti, i. p. 36. Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 104, ed. Basil, 1741. 
De Rossi, Inscr. Christ. p. xxix. Salmon, Hermathena, No. 1, 1873. 


234 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF 


πρὸς “EAAnvas 
καὶ πρὸς ΠΠ(λγάτωνα 
15 ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός" 
προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς σεβήρειναν" 
᾿Απόδε(ι) Ets χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα 
20 κατὰ [τὰ] ἐν τῷ πίνακι" 
ὠδαί: (ε)ἰς πάσας τὰς γραφάς" 
περὶ θῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως" 
25 περὶ τἀγαθοῦ, καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν ; 
Or in English translation, adopting the proposed 
conjectures, 
Against the Fews. 
On Virginity (?). 
On the Psalms. 
On the Ventriloquist [the Witch at Endor). 
Defence of the Gospel according to St. Fohn and the 
Apocalypse. 


On Spiritual Gifts: Apostolic Tradition. 
Annals. 


Against the Heathen, and against Plato, or on the 
Universe. 

A hortatory Address to Severina. 

Demonstration of the Times of Easter according to 
the Order in the Table. 

flymns : On all the Scriptures. 

Concerning God and the Resurrection of the Flesh. 

Concerning Good, and the Origin of Evil. 

A few notes on the above may be added. 

In v. 1 of the Greek the conjecture εἰς ᾿Ιουδαίους, “ in 
Judzos,” has been adopted, such a topic being com- 


THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 235 


monly handled by the sub-apostolic writers, Justin 
Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian; and not unlikely to be 
treated of by St. Hippolytus. See the editions of the 
works of Hippolytus, Fabricius (ii. 2) and Lagarde 
(p. 63, where are extracts from a treatise with this 
title, “ Against the Jews,” by Hippolytus). Cardinal 
Mai’s Script. Vet. i. 223; ii. 439—448. 

In v. 2 I would suggest περὶ παρθενίας, or “de Vir- 
ginitate,” for a similar reason. | 

But the letters NI in NIA, v. 2, are not certain, 
and may perhaps be M (Mai, Script. Vet. nova Coll., 
vol. v. pp. 70—73). Smetius reads VI. We might 
conjecture εἰς τὰς παροιμίας, “on the Proverbs.” We 
know from St. Jerome that St. Hippolytus wrote a 
commentary on that Book, and fragments of that 
Commentary have been published by Lagarde (p. 196). 
Or it may be περὶ οἰκονομίας, “on the Dispensation, 
or Incarnation : see below, p. 240. 

UV. 3. εἰς τοὺς ψαλμοὺς is certain; see extracts from 
this work of St. Hippolytus in Lagarde, pp. 187—195. 

v. 4. On the Witchof Endor. See Fabricius, pp. 81 
and 267. 

v. 5. In the list of the works of Hippolytus by 
Ebed-Jesu, Bibl. Oriental. Assemanni, iii. Pt. 1, 15, is 
“ Apology for the Apocalypse of John the Apostle 
and Evangelist, and Chapters against Caius.” 

As to the relation of Hippolytus to the Apocalypse 
and to Caius, who seems to have impugned it, see 
above, chapter iv. p. 39. 

VU. 9. περὶ χαρισμάτων, “on Spiritual Gifts,” especially 


236 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF 


such as are bestowed on Bishops, Priests,and Deacons 
at ordination, and their consequent duties. See above, 
pp. 143, 144, and Fabricius, pp. 83 and 245, and 
Lagarde, p. 73. 

v.11. χρονικῶν. See the edition of St. Hippolytus 
by Fabricius, p. 49. 

v. 12. πρὸς “EXAnvas κιτιλ. A fragment from this 
work is printed by Fabricius, p. 220,and by Lagarde, 
p. 68. 

v. 16. προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς σεβήρειναν. The Severina 
here. mentioned was probably Severa, wife of the 
Emperor Philip (A.D. 243—249), who was a loyal 
Christian (Euseb. vi. 34). Origen wrote a letter to 
her (Euseb. vi. 36). He had instructed Mammea, 
mother of Alexander Severus, in the doctrines of 
the Gospel (Euseb. vi. 21). Cp. Tillemont, iii. 242, 
243; and so Le Moyne in Fabricius, Ὁ. 88. Dr. 
Dollinger with less probability, as it seems to me, 
identifies her with Julia Aquileia Severa, second 
wife of Elagabalus. Fabricius (p. 92) and Lagarde 
(p. 90) have printed an extract of an Epistle of Hip- 
polytus to a certain Queen. If she was the same as 
Severa, Hippolytus must have been alive in A.D. 244. 

The name Severa (a rather ill-omened one) would 
not unnaturally be softened into Severina: Fabius, 
Bishop of Antioch, is also called Fabianus by Euse- 
bius ; and Novatian is called Novatus. 

v. 18. Demonstration of the Times of Easter accord- 


ing to the Order in the Table Sa the Statue). See 
Fabricius, p. 38. 


THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 237 


v. 21. @dai. It is probable that ὠδαὶ is correct, and 
that it is a title of an integral work, and that Hip- 
polytus, who was an eloquent orator, and writes some- 
times as a poet even in his prose, composed sacred 
songs, ὭΙΔΑΣ, such as he himself describes as having 
been written in honour of Christ (ap. Euseb. v. 28), 
ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ QuAAI ἀδελφῶν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πισ- 
τῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι 
θεολογοῦντες. Cp. Pliny, Epist. x. 97. 

For a specimen of a primitive anapzstic 07 to 
Christ,—and also one in iambic verse, to which 
perhaps Hippolytus was referring,—see Clemens 
Alexandr., Pedagog. iii. at the end, and Potter’s 
note there, p. 312. 

Then “eis πάσας τὰς γραφὰς is another distinct 
title, z.e. “In omnes Scripturas,” “On all the Scrip- 
tures,” according to the common mode of expression 
for designating expositions of Scripture by means of 
the preposition εἰς. See instances in Nicephor. Callist. 
iv. 31, in his account of Hippolytus, e.g. εἰς τὸ ΓΑισμα 
τῶν ἀσμάτων---εἰς μέρη τοῦ “Ιεζεκιήλ. 

τ. 23. περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως. A fragment 
of a work of Hippolytus περὶ ἀναστάσεως is printed 
by Fabricius, p. 244, and Lagarde, p. go. 

v.25. On Good, and the Origin of Evil. See Fabricius, 
Ρ. 89. Probably against the heresy of Florinus, who 
imagined God to be the Author of Evil. Euseb. v. 20. 
See also Euseb. v. 27, where he says that Maximus 
wrote a treatise περὶ τοῦ πολυθρυλήτου παρὰ τοῖς 


ς ΄ , cc 40 ς / a) 
αἱρεσιαρχαις ζητήματος, ““ποῦεν ἡ κακία; 


238 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF 


On the titles of the works on the Statue generally, 
see the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius, pp. 79—8a, 
and Cave’s Hist. Lit. i. pp. 104—6. 

The second ancient list of the works of St. Hip- 
polytus is that of Eusebius, who says, “ Hippolytus, 
together with many other writings, composed a work 
concerning Easter ; in which, having set forth a chro- 
nological series, and also having propounded a certain 
canon of sixteen years for determining Easter, he 
brings his Chronicle down to the first year of Alexander 
Severus (A.D. 222). Of his other writings, those 
which have come into my hands are these : Ox the Six 
Days’ Work of Creation ; on the Things after Creation ; 
against Marcion ; on the Song of Solomon; on Por- 
tions of Ezekiel ; against Heresies; and you may find 
many more of his works among many other persons.” 

St. Jerome (de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Art. Lxi.) 
makes large additions to the list of Eusebius. “ Hip- 
polytus composed a Calendar for Easter and a 
Chronicle to the first year of Alexander Severus, and 
invented a cycle, which the Greeks call ἑκκαιδεκα- 
ετηρὶς, of sixteen years. 

“ He wrote some Commentaries on Scripture, of which 
I have seen, Ox the Six Days Creation; on Exodus ; 
on the Song of Songs ; on Genesis, and Zechariah ; on 
the Psalms ; on Isaiah ; on Daniel; on the Apocalypse ; 
on the Proverbs ; on Ecclesiastes; on Saul and the 
Witch of Endor; also on Antichrist; on the Resur- 
rection; against Marcion; on Easter; against all 
Fleresies ; and πρὸς ὁμιλιῶν, on the Praise of our 


THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 239 


Blessed Lord and Saviour, in which he intimates thathe 
is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen.” 

What is to be said of these last words? For πρὸς 
ὁμιλιῶν I am disposed to think with Dr. Routh that 
we should read προσομιλίαν, “a Conference” or 
“homiletical address.” Cp. Nicephor. Callisti, iv.. 31, 
where he translates these words. Origen was at Rome 
for a short time in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus 
(Euseb. H. FE. vi. 14). 

Another list of the works of St. Hippolytus is given 
by Nicephorus Callisti, who copies Eusebius and St. 
Jerome, and adds something from other sources 
(Eccl. Hist. iv. 31) as follows :— 

‘In the times of Severus flourished Hippolytus, 
Bishop of Portus Romanus (the harbour of Rome), 
and composed many wise works, among which he 
wrote a treatise on Easter, in which having set forth a 
chronological series, and having also propounded a 
certain canon of sixteen years for determining Easter, 
he brings his Chronicle down to the first year of 
Alexander. 

“The following are his writings :— 

“ On the Six Days Work of Creation ; a Refutation of 
Marcion ; on the Song of Songs ; on Parts of Ezekiel ; 
concerning Easter; a most profitable Treatise against 
all Heresies; on the Coming of Antichrist; on the 
Resurrection, and very many more ; 0x Zechariah ; on 
the Psalms ; on Isaiah ; on Dantel; on the Apocalypse ; 
on the Proverbs ; on Saul and the Witch of Endor ; con- 
cerning the Praises of our Lord Fesus Christ ; which 


240 THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


he preached (ὡμίλησε) in the presence of Origen. And 
whereas some of his writings may be taken hold of 
for censure, he being afterwards consummated by Mar- 
tyrdom for Christ, wiped off thereby the stain of 
ignorance.” 

In the Catalogue by Ebed-Jesu of works ascribed 
to Hippolytus by the Syro-Chaldzans,’ are the fol- 
lowing words: “St. Hippolytus, Martyr and Bishop, 
wrote a book on the Dzspensation (οἰκονομία or 75- 
carnation), an Exposition of the lesser Daniel and 
Susanna; Chapters against Caius, and an Apology 
Jor the Apocalypse and Gospel of Fohn the A postle and 
Evangelist.” 


* Assemanni Bibl. Oriental. iii. pt. i. p. 15. 


CHAPTER ALY. 


On the Orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus. 


DR. VON DOLLINGER’S learned work, entitled “ Fip- 
polytus und Kallistus,” has been characterized by Dean 
Milman (in his Latin Christianity, book i. chap. i.) as an 
“ Apologia pro Callisto,’ and in this respect it carried 
no other conviction to the Dean’s mind “ but of the 


’ 


author’s learning and ingenuity ;” and caused him to 
regret that “so able and in some respects so instructive 
a book should be written with such a resolute (no doubt 
conscientious) determination to make out a case.” 

For my own part, I should have felt less concern in 
recognizing it as an “ Apologia pro Callisto,” if the 
defence of Callistus had not involved a condemnation 
of St. Hippolytus. 

The learned Author imputes to Hippolytus a 
leaning, derived from Platonism, toward the heresy 
of Valentinus' against which his master Irenzeus had 
contended strongly and successfully. 

He alleges that the theology of St. Hippolytus, 
concerning the generation of the Logos from the 


1 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp. 218—220. 
R 


242 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


Mind of the Father, is akin to the heresy of Valentinus 
as to the production of the Nous (Mind) or Monogenes 
(Only-begotten), and according to which, Sigé or 
Ennoia produced Nous or Mind from Bythos or 
Monas the primitive original of all. 

Other charges against the orthodoxy of Hippolytus 
occupy several pages of Dr. Dollinger’s work.’ 

The reader will have some means of judging for 
himself as to the justice of these allegations, by 
examining the words of Hippolytus in foregoing parts 
of the present work, together with the notes appended 
to them.° | 

And if he will consult the entire work, entitled “ The 
Refutation of all Heresies” by Hippolytus, he will there 
see that the Author protests in the strongest terms 
against that very Platonic tendency, and Valen- 
tinianism,* which are laid to his charge by Dr. Dol- 
linger. I do not pretend to say that the language of 
St. Hippolytus concerning the doctrine of the Blessed 
Trinity, and the Eternal Generation of the Son of 
God, consubstantial, co-eternal, and co-equal with the 
Father, is precisely that which would have been em- 
ployed by a Teacher of the Church who had enjoyed 
all the benefits which accrued to her from her conflict 
with,—and victory over,—Arianism in the fourth cen- 
tury, and had been familiar from his childhood with 

2 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp. 206—218. 226—229. 

3 Pp. 65—97. ; 

4 See Philos. pp. 177, 178. 198. 319, 320. Cp. Dorner on the Person 


of Christ, p. 449, who shows that Beron, against whom Hippolytus 
wrote, broached Valentinian tenets. 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 248 


the terminology of the Nicene Creed. Hippolytus 
was not an Athanasius. Who would have supposed 
that he could be? 

As St. Augustine well says, “ The Catholic Faith 
grew in clearness and in strength from its controversies 
with heresies.” The Lion of heresy was slain by the 
strong Samsons of the Church (and we need not 
hesitate to reckon Hippolytus as one), and the Church 
has fed on the sweetness of the honey which came 
forth from the carcase of the Lion.° 

The reverence shown for the name and doctrine of 
Hippolytus by the most celebrated Nicene and Post- 
nicene Fathers, who possessed all his writings,—which 
we do not,—is a sufficient guarantee of his orthodoxy. 
And in later times some who carefully examined his 
extant works, and were well qualified to pronounce 
judgment upon them, have shown reason for concur- 
rence in that earlier testimony. I refer specially to 
Dr. Waterland and to Bishop Bull. 

When Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman in his “Essay on 
Development of Christian Doctrine” *—following in the 
steps of Petavius—alleged against some of the Ante- 
nicene Fathers, of whom St. Hippolytus was one, that 
they ascribed to the Son of God only a generation in 
time and not from eternity, he cited some words of 
Dr. Waterland, “The Authors who make the generation 
[of the Son] temporary, and speak not expressly of 
any other, are these following,—Justin, Athenagoras, 
Theophilus, Tatian, Tertullian, and 7% oppolytus.”* 

5 Judges xiv. 8, 9. » Fa ts 7 Waterland, vol. i. pt. 11. p. 104. 
R 2 


244 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


Who would not have inferred from this allegation 
of Dr. Newman, that these Fathers were Arianizers | 
before Arius, and that Dr. Waterland acknowledged 
them so to be? 

But what is the fact ? 

The Antenicene Fathers speak of a threefold genera- 
tion of the Son. 

1. His eternal generation, as Everlasting Son from 
Everlasting Father. 

2. His generation in time (for so it is sometimes 
called), or condescension (συγκατάβασις) to create the 
world. . 

3. His filiation, also in ¢zme, as Man, from the 
Virgin Mary His Mother. 

These two latter generations concern mankind most 
intimately, and therefore it would be surprising if the 
early Fathers had not dwelt on them most frequently 
and earnestly ; and it would not be wonderful if they 
should have said little on the more transcendental 
question of the e¢erzal generation of the Son, before it 
was denied by Arius, when the case was altered, and 
then the Christian Writers became more frequent 
and copious in their assertion and explication of that 
truth# 

But I would here observe that ¢/zs fact—I mean 
the habitual inculcation of this doctrine by the Post- 
nicene Fathers—ought to be accepted as a proof of 


® Hooker, v. xlii. 6. ‘*Some good the Church hath reaped by the 
contentions of Arianism, in that they occasioned the learned and sound 
iu faith to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave.”’ 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 245 


the belief of the Axztenicene to the same effect. The 
Creed of Niczea is.the best exponent of the tenets of 
the Antenicene age. 

And let me cite the words of Dr. Waterland :"-- 

“ After Arius arose, the Catholics found it neces- 
sary to insist much on the eternal generation. For 
the Arians taking advantage of it, that the temporary 
condescension of the Son to create the world had 
often been called His generation, were for looking no 
higher, but artfully insinuated that this was the first 
production of Him. However, the Arians might have 
known that the eternal existence of the Λόγος (or 
WORD) was uuzversally taught, and even by those 
who asserted a temporal generation.” 

Let me now speak of Bishop Bull. 

“In his Defence of the Nicene Creed, Bishop Bull 
hath proved,”* says his biographer Robert Nelson, 
“that some Catholic writers more ancient than the 
Nicene Council, seem to attribute a certain nativity 
to the Son of God, as God; but if their sayings are 
accurately weighed, saith he, it will appear that they 
speak of a nativity not real, but figurative ; that is, 
their meaning was that the Logos, or Divine Word, 
which from all eternity did exist in and with God the 
Father, as the co-eternal offspring of His Eternal Mind, 


then, when He was about to create the World, came 


9 Waterland, i. 2, p. 114. See also ibid. pp. 103. 134—40. 288. 
On this subject let me invite the student’s special attention to Dr. 
Waterland’s Defence of some Queries, Query viii. pp. 86—117, and 
Query xi. pp. 134—140; xxv. pp. 268—278. Vol. i. pt. 11.» ed. Van 
Mildert, Oxford, 1823. 

1 Robert Nelson’s Life of Bishop Bull, p. 264. 


246 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


forth into operation (κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν), and so proceeded 
to the constitution and formation of all things therein, 
for the manifesting Himself and His Father to the 
Creatures, and that by reason of this progression 
(προέλευσις), He is in Scripture called the Son of God, 
and His First-begotten. 

“This Bishop Bull clears up? by a most accurate 
explication of the opinions of Athenagoras, concern- 
ing the Son’s eternity and progression, as also of 
Tatian and Theophilus Antiochenus, whom he proveth 
as to the main to have been sound and Catholic in 
this point. The same he hath made out also concern- 
ing St. Hippolytus, and hath fully represented the 
sentiment hereupon of Tertullian. .. . He shows by 
several plain and express testimonies of Justin 
Martyr, &c. &c., that the better and greater part of 
the Christian doctors, who lived before the Council of 
Nice, did openly, clearly, and perspicuously teach 
the Son’s co-eternal existence with God the Father.” * 

In our own age one of our most learned divines, 
the late Dr. Martin Routh, when making a selection 
of theological works for the use of Students of 
Divinity, made choice of the work of Sz. Hippolytus 
against Noetus as containing a valuable treatise “on 
the divine Unity, and on the Person of the Son of 
God.” * Let me refer the reader to that work. 

At the present time there are some who seem to 
regard the names of our greatest English Divines, 


» Ps 266, 3 Pp. 264. 266. 
* Routh, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula, p. vii. pp. 49—80, 
Oxon. 1858. 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 5247 


such as Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland, with cold- 
ness and suspicion,’ as if they were disposed to warp 
and strain the language of the Antenicene Fathers, 
so as to fit the Creed of Nicza. Happily, therefore, 
in the present case we may refer to a learned writer 
of large and liberal views, and not of our own country, 
against whom no such exception will be made. The 
reader will anticipate the name of Dr. J. A. Dorner, 
Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin.° 
Dr. Dorner has given a full analysis of the doctrine of 
St. Hippolytus, as far as it came under his cognizance.’ 
St. Hippolytus (he observes) had to contend on the 
one side against the Noetians and Patripassians, who 
held that the Father was one with the Son, and 
suffered in the Son ; and on the other he had to resist 
the heresy of Artemon, Theodotus, and others like 
them, who looked on Christ as mere Man. He main- 
tained the Unity of the Godhead, and yet affirmed the 
existence of three divine Persons in the One God ; 
and he claimed divine worship for each of the three. 
Hippolytus has done this in hiswork against Noetus.® 
His system (as Dr. Dorner remarks) is irreconcila- 
ble with Arianism. According to him, the Son is 
of the same substance with the Father, and is not a 


ὅ Not so Dr. Patrick Fairbairn, Appendix to Dr. Dorner on the 
Person of Christ, English Translation, Edinburgh, 1878, pp. 342—391; 
he there does ample justice to Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland. 

6 Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Berlin, 1851-54, 5 vols. 

7 Division i. vol. ii. pp. 85—100, and pp. 449—456, English Trans- 
lation, Edinburgh, 1862. 

8 Chap. 3. 8. 6. 11. 13. Cp. his Theophan., 10. _ 


248 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS, 


creature, but begotten by God before all creation; 
and “Hippolytus never would have affirmed with 
Arius that there was a time when the Son was not; he 
believed that time began with creation, and that the 
world was created by the Logos, who was not a 
creature, but a Son.” 

That there is some inadequacy in the teaching of 
Hippolytus as to the eternal generation of the Son, 
as a Son, and as distinct from the Logos, may be con- 
ceded, and that the generation of the Logos by the Will 
of the Father " might be misconstrued into a supposi- 
tion that the generation was not eternal. And the 
doctrine of the subordination of the Son as stated by 
him might lead to assertions of personal inferiority. 

But inasmuch as God was never ἄλογος, 7.¢é. 
without the Word (c. Noet. cap. 11), and inas- 
much also as the Word is God (cap. 6), and there- 
fore Eternal, the Will of God by which He was gene- 
rated was as it were an attribute of God, and was 
exercised from Eternity. And as to the doctrine of 
subordination of the Son of God, it was due to the 
- orthodox doctrine that there is but one ἀρχὴ, or πηγὴ, 
or pla, 1. 6. one principle, fountain, or origin and root 
of Deity, and that this was in the Father, and conse- 
quently, in a certain sense, the Son was subordinate to 


τ: Ἰνδοῖς; Ὁ. 16: 

1 Dr. Dorner says, p. 450, that “he adhered to a harmless form of 
subordination, the inner inconsistency of which impelled it to the ex- 
clusion of all inadequate elements; and there can be no doubt whatever 
that when the time arrived for deciding between Athanasius and Arius, 
he could not possibly feel drawn toward the latter.” 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 249 


the Father, but not in time (for He was the Eternal 
Logos of the Father); nor in dignity, for He was God 
(and what is less than God cannot be God); but so far 
as that which is generated is subordinated to that 
which generates it (c. Noet. cap. 13 and 14). 

But it is no impeachment of the wisdom and piety 
of Hippolytus that he did not foresee heresies, espe- 
cially Arianism, which grew up after his age. 

Dr. Dorner does indeed say that in his opinion St. 
Hippolytus did not teach that, although the essence of 
the Logos was eternal, He was eternal in personality ; 
and that the Only-begotten was indeed perfect Logos 
prior to His Incarnation, but not as yet perfect Son of 
God ; and that His Sonship which was manifested at 
the Creation of the World was not completed till His 
Incarnation ; and that His Sonship in time was a 
showing forth of the Logos? which was Eternal. 

But to this it may be said with Bishop Bull® that the 
Logos had not completed all the course of filiation, 
which was prescribed for Him by the Father, till He 
had become Son of Man; and that then that course 
was completed ; for, as has been already remarked,* 
there are three stages (to speak it with reverence) 
of generation of the Son from the Father : first, from 
eternity; secondly, atthe Creation of the World; thirdly, 
at the Incarnation ; and in ¢hzs sense the filiation was 
not perfected till that time. 


Before parting with Dr. Dorner, we may observe 


2 Dorner, pp. 88, 89. 
3 Defens. Fid. Nic., p. 164. See above, p. 245. 
4 Above, p. 244. 


250 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


that we have even more means for maintaining the 
orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus than hehad. Dr. Dorner 
was not aware that the “Little Labyrinth” was the 
same work as that quoted by Eusebius,’ and that 
it was written by Hippolytus.° 

In that work he refers to the Holy Scriptures as 
testifying the Divinity of Christ, appeals with approval 
to the writings of Justin Martyr and others, in which 
“ Christ is declared to be God” (θεολογεῖται ὁ Χριστὸς), 
and he also puts this question,—* Who knows not the 
writings of Irenzeus and Melito and the rest, which 
proclaim Christ to be God and Man; and how many 
psalms and hymns of brethren, from the beginning, 
written by faithful men, celebrate the Logos of God, 
the Christ,—and praise Him as God?” Hippolytus 
speaks there of Christ as “our Merciful God and Lord 
Jesus Christ,” and he says that they who affirm Him 
to be mere man (as Artemon and Theodotus did) are 
guilty of a godless heresy. 

Besides, when Dr. Dorner composed his volumes, 
the “Refutation of all Heresies” by St. Hippolytus 
was still lying hid in a monastery, or at least had 
not been proved to be his. And therefore Dr. Dor- 
ners estimate of Hippolytus must be supplemented 
from the present work. In it St. Hippolytus draws a 
sharp line between true doctrine and every phase of 
heresy then known. Not only does he refute, in his 
sixth and seventh books, the various forms of Gnos- 


5 Euseb. H. E. v. 28. 
§ See above, chap. xii. p. 196, 210, 216. 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 251 


ticism, in Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcus, Basilides, 
Carpocrates, and others; not only does he reject, in 
the seventh book, all the low humanitarian notions 
of Christ’s nature propagated by Cerinthus, the 
Ebionites, Theodotus,.and others, and the dualistic 
notions of Marcion; not only does he explode the 
fantastic theories of the Docetz in the eighth ; but in 
the ninth book he grapples also with those who pro- 
fessed to maintain the divine unity, but denied the 
personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, as was done 
by Noetus, the Sabellians, and Callistus.’ 

We can hardly say with Dr. Dorner that in the 
theology of Hippolytus, there was indeed the Logos 
from Eternity, but not the Son ; for Hippolytus speaks 
of God as a Father from Eternity, and also as gene- 
rating from Eternity.* And where there is generation, 
there is offspring ; and where the Father was, there was 
a Son. The Logos is spoken of by our Author as 
having in Himself the will of Him Who Jdegat Him, 
and as being His first-born from the beginning, before 
the World was ; and is therefore called by him the 
Jirst-begotten Son of the Father.” 

On the whole, then, there is good reason to concur 
in the judgment of the ancient Catholic Church, 
which has declared St. Hippolytus to be one of her 
greatest Champions of the true faith; and any at- 
tempt to build a vindication of Callistus, Bishop of 


7 See also Lib. x. pp. 329, 330. 


5 Pp. 334) 335: 
8. P. 336 Cp. Contra Noetum, cap. II. 


¢ 252 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


_ Rome, from a charge of heresy, by damaging the 
’ character of his opponent St. Hippolytus, who 
ν᾽ resisted and denounced him as an heresiarch, will, I 
am persuaded, find little favour in the eyes of wise, 
learned, candid, and generous men. 

That St. Hippolytus held and taught the δειιδθὰ 
faith concerning the Blessed Trinity and the divine 
Person of Christ may be inferred also from the follow- 
ing considerations. 

His writings were numerous, and were composed in 
the Greek language, and were well known in the 
Eastern Church. The “Refutation of all Heresies” 
has been brought to light from a Greek monastery in 
our own day, and was probably familiar to many 
Eastern writers. 

If he had been chargeable with unsoundness in the 
faith, especially in such grave matters as the doctrine 
of the Trinity, and the Person of Christ, there is no 
doubt that the Church (which did take notice of his 
inclination to Novatianism) would not have allowed 
his teaching on those more serious subjects to pass 
unchallenged and uncensured. 

Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman—who in his zeal for 
the Papacy has endeavoured to damage the reputa- 
tion, and to detract from the authority, of the Ante- 
nicene Fathers, as Cardinal Perron and Petavius did 
before him—has reminded us! that Dionysius of 
Alexandria—who was a contemporary of St. Hippoly- 
tus—was afterwards said by St. Basil to have sown the 


1 Doctrine of Development, p. 13. 


ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 2688 


first seeds of Arianism.2?- We know that St. Dionysius 
in his zeal against Sabellius let fall some unguarded ex- 
pressions, which were misconstrued by some Censors, 
into expressions derogatory to our Lord’s Divine 
Personality. We know also (which Dr. Newman 
does not mention) that St. Dionysius of Alexandria 
addressed a letter to St. Dionysius of Rome, in which 
he declared his real sentiments, and justified himself in 
the eyes of the Church; and this vindication is de- 
clared by St. Athanasius to have been universally 
regarded as satisfactory.® 

It may be fairly concluded from this, that if St. 
Hippolytus, the contemporary of Dionysius, had 
swerved from the line of orthodoxy in cardinal articles 
of the faith, the Church, which showed itself so sen- 
sitive and jealous in the case of Dionysius, would 
not have been less susceptible in that of Hippolytus. 
But so far from breathing a single syllable in dis- 
paragement of his orthodoxy, the Church has ever 
regarded him as one of the most strenuous and faith- 
ful Champions of true doctrine. 

It may perhaps be alleged that the same plea 
might be urged in behalf of Callistus. If he had been 
a heretic (it may be asked), would not the Church 
have protested against his heresy? To which it may 
be replied that it did so by the voice of Hippolytus. / 
And there was a wide difference between the two cases. 


3.8 Basil, Ep. ix. 2. 

ὅ See Athanasius de Sententia Dionysii, ὃ 14, § 17, and § 19 ; and see 
also Bp. Bull, vol. v. pp. 394. 409. 414, ed. Burton; and Waterland, iii. 
p- 10; and Routh, Reliquiz, iii. 379—402. 


254 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


Hippolytus was a voluminous writer in Greek, but as 
far as we know, Callistus wrote nothing. His Epis- 
copate was a short one—about five years, in the 
Roman Church early in the third century. 

Church History, as we have seen,‘ was of Eastern 
origin, and knew little of Western affairs in early times. 
No one imagined a Bishop of Rome to be infallible, 
or was greatly astonished by his fall. His strange 
dogmas, which made some stir in his brief Episcopate, 
were regarded as of little importance after his death, 
and were soon forgotten. They were absorbed and 
lost in the more formidable and better formulated 
heresy of Sabellius, which then occupied the attention, 
and exercised all the energies of the Church. 

We may, therefore, sum up as follows,— 

Callistus is asserted by Hippolytus to have been a 
heretic. No Church Historian affirms Callistus to have 
been orthodox. All Church History that has spoken 
of Hippolytus,—and his name is one of the most cele- 
brated in its annals,—has concurred in bearing witness 
to the soundness of his faith. 

When, therefore, Hippolytus and Callistus are 
placed before us as antagonists,—the one inculpating 
the other,—in a trial of sound doctrine, we may fairly 
say with the Roman orator of old, “ Utri creditis, 
Quirites ?” and we may leave it to an impartial jury 
to pronounce the verdict. 


* Above, pp. 188—193. 


CHAPIER .4¥.. 


On the Episcopal See of St. Hippolytus. 


RATHER more than a century ago, Cardinal Ottoboni 
was Bishop of Porto, the ancient Portus Romanus, 
or harbour of Rome. Portus was situated at the 
northern mouth of the Tiber, about fifteen miles from 
Rome, and had enjoyed considerable commercial 
celebrity in former times.’ The harbour (Portus), 
whence the city derived its name and importance, 
had been constructed by the Emperor Claudius, 
enlarged by Nero, and improved by Trajan, whence 
it was called “ Portus Trajani ;”’ and possesses an 
interest in Christian history, as the harbour at which 
St. Ignatius landed in his way from Antioch to his 
martyrdom at Rome. Cardinal Ottoboni had a 


1 See Dio Cass. in Claudio, lib. Ix. num. xi. tom. ii. p. 949, ed. 
Hamburg, 1752, and Sueton. in Claud. 20. Plin. N. H. ix. 6, xvi. 
40, and Sir W. Gell’s Vicinity of Rome, ii. pp. 174—9, and Contorni di 
Roma, by Nibby, ii. p. 323, who has published a separate work on Porto. 
See also Westphal’s work on the Campagna, p. 172. 

2 Martyr. Ignat. § 6, p. 591, ed. 2nd, Jacobson. Pammachius and 
Fabiola, friends of St. Jerome, erected a Xenodochium there about 
A.D. 394 (S. Jerome, Epist. 54 and 94). Its importance and extent 
in the time of Alaric, when it was the greatest emporium of Rome, 
are evident from the words of Philostorgius (Lib. xii. 3). 


256 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


noble library, and endeavoured to restore the archi- 
tectural beauty of his Episcopal City, which in the 
lapse of ages had fallen into decay. _ 

In his zeal for the restoration of the ecclesiastical 
edifices of Portus, he did not forget the names of 
those whom he reckoned among his predecessors. 
Of these, one stood pre-eminent ; one, who had shed 
lustre not only upon the See of Portus, but on the 
Western Church, and on Christendom. He had been 
celebrated for holiness and orthodoxy, for learning and 
eloquence ;* he was reckoned among the Saints and 
Martyrs of the Western Church. He was also vene- 
rable for his antiquity; he had flourished in the 
second and third centuries of the Christian era. He 
had ° been a scholar of St. Irenzus, who, in his youth, 
had listened to St. Polycarp,’ the disciple of St. John. 
This was St. HIPPOLYTUS. 

It was the desire of Cardinal Ottoboni, Bishop of 
Portus, to do honour to his memory. 

The Bishop of Porto,—being a Suffragan of Rome, 
having the oversight of one of the churches anciently’ 


3 Card. Baron. ad Ann. 229. ‘‘De Hippolyto hactenus, in quo 
utraque conveniunt ut Orientalis et Occidentalis Ecclesiz ingens decus 
merito dici possit.” 

* Hippolytus is called ‘‘ Vir disertissimus ” by St. Jerome ad J.ucin. 
iv. p. 579, ed. Bened. ‘*‘ Sacratissimus et magnus Doctor Veritatisque 
testis fidelis,” by Anastasius in Collectan. apud Galland. Bibl. ii. 
p- 469, and a ‘‘stream of living waters to the Church,” ποταμὸς τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ ζώντων ναμάτων, by Syncellus, ad A.D. 215, by Zonaras, Annal. 
p- 468, ἀνὴρ ἱερώτατος καὶ σοφώτατος. 

5 Phot. Cod. 121. 

ὁ Euseb. v. 20. 

7 See Ruffinus in Canon. Concil. Nicen. 6, and Notitia Curiz 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 257 


called Suburbicarian, from their vicinity to the Urés, 
or City of Rome, and one of those who are now 
designated “Cardinal Bishops,” and being among 
those Prelates, whose office it has been from time 
immemorial to consecrate* the Bishop of Rome,— 
exercises considerable influence in the Roman 
Conclave. Cardinal Ottoboni endeavoured to obtain 
a Pontifical brief for the sanction of a special Office 
in honour of St. Hippolytus. Some circumstances, 
however, had then recently occurred, which obstructed 
the execution of his design. Many local traditions, 
it is true, were known to exist at Portus, connecting 
the name of St. Hippolytus with that city and See. 
A building, called Torre di S. Ippolito, still stands at 
Porto. (See Nibby, Contorni, ii. p. 320.) The Church 
at Portus had been called S. Hippolyti Ecclesia from 
time immemorial, ¢.¢.in a Bull of Pope Gregory IX, 
A.D. 1236. He was, and is at this day, regarded 
as the Patron of the Diocese. And the testimony of 
those who had applied themselves to the study of 
Ecclesiastical History, since the revival of letters in 
Europe, to the end of the seventeenth century, had 
been almost unanimous in favour of the claim of 


Romane, ed. 1683, p. 17: ‘*Consecrabant Pontificem Romanum 
Episcopi vii. ejus Suffraganei nimirum Ostiensis, /ortuensis, Sylve 
Candide sive Ruffinee, Tusculanus, Przenestinus, Sabinensis, Albanensis, 
et dicebantur ante Leonis IX. tempora Cardinales Episcopi.” These 
Episcopi Suffraganei were formerly viii.; Eugenius III. reduced them 
to vi. by uniting the ‘‘ Ecclesia Veliterna” to Ostia, and ‘‘ Sancta 
Ruffina” to Portus. See Onuphr. de VII. Urbis Eccl., c. 1. 

8 Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, cap. 2, art. 8: “ Episcopus 
Portuensis dat orationem secundam,”’ δίδωσι προσευχὴν δευτέραν. 


5 


208 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


Portus to the possession of that inheritance. That 
St. Hippolytus, the scholar of St. Irenzus, had been 
Bishop of Portus Romanus, or the harbour of Rome, 
two miles to the north of Ostia,—had been affirmed 
by the most celebrated Church Historians and 
Divines of Rome, such as Cardinals Baronius® and 
Bellarmine,’ and by Roman Popes, such as Pius 
the Fourth, who designated him as Lzshop of Portus 
on the pedestal of his statue found in 1551, and had 
been acknowledged as indubitable by the most learned 
Theologians of other Churches, as, for example, 
by Archbishop Ussher,? Henry Dodwell,? Bishop 
Beveridge,* and Bishop Bull.’ 

But in the year 1685, a learned Theologian of 
Holland, Stephen Le Moyne,’ published at Leyden 
his “Varia Sacra,” in which he controverted the 
ancient and generally received tradition concerning 
St. Hippolytus. He did not deny that Hippolytus 
was a Bishop: he acknowledged him as a Martyr: 
he admitted that he had flourished early in the third 
century. But he would not allow that he had ever 
sat in the Episcopal See of Portus, near Rome. 


® Card. Baron. Ann. ad A.D. 229. 
1 Card. Bellarmin. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, vii. p. 41. 
? In notis ad Martyrium 5. Ignatii, § 6, p. 570, ed. Jacobson. 


3 Ἢ. Dodwell, Dissertatio de Rom. Pontif. Success., p. 95, cap. 7» 
p- 202. 


- * Cod. Canon. Eccl., lib. ii. cap. 2, ὃ v. 
5 Def. Fid. Nic., ii. 8. 1, p. 270, ed. Burton. 
6 Le Moyne, Proleg. in Varia Sacra. Vol. ii. Ῥ. 29, 30, ed. 2da, Lug. 


Bat. 1694. Le Moyne was a native of France, but composed this work 
in his capacity of Theological Professor at Leyden. 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 259 


Relying on certain notices occurring in some ancient 
writers, Le Moyne would have transferred St. Hip- 
polytus from the genial clime of Italy and the banks 
of the Tiber, to the stern wilds of Arabia, and to the 
shores of the Red Sea. He would have made him a 
Bishop of the Roman Emporium at Aden, near what 
are called the Straits of Bab-el Mandeb, on the 
southern coast of Arabia.’ 

Le Moyne’s theory, which was defended with 
ingenuity and learning, found favour in various 
quarters. Dr. Cave ἢ adopted it in England, Dupin’ 
and Tillemont* in France, Spanheim * and Basnage’ 
in Holland. Assemann, in Italy,* appeared disposed 
to do the same. Portus was in danger of being 
deprived of its most illustrious ornament,—the Bishop 
and Martyr, St. Hippolytus. | 

Errors are not without use, as ministering occasions 
for the firmer establishment of truth. So it fared 
in the present case. It happened fortunately for the 
honour of Portus, and for the fame of Hippolytus, 
that the See of that city was filled at the time to 
which we refer, by a Prelate eminent for his love of 


7 Le Moyne, p. 30. Non Episcopus Portus Ostiensis (he appears to 
confound Ostia and Portus), sed Portus Romani in Arabia. 

8 Cave, Historia Eccl., i. p. 102. 

9 Dupin, Biblioth., i. p. 179. 

1 Tillemont, Mémoires, &c. Vol. iii. p. 104. 310, ed. 1732. See 
also Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 496, ed. 4to. 1815. 

2 Spanheim, Epitome Isagogica ad Hist. Eccl., p. 131, ed. Lug: Bat. ᾿ 
1689. . 

* Basnage, Annales Polit..Eccles. ad A.D. 222, Roterodami, 1706. 

4 Assemann, Biblioth. Orient. Clem. Vatican., 111. p. I, ¢. 7, p. 15. 


S$ 2 


200 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


literature, and distinguished by zeal and enthusiasm 
for the past, and by affectionate regard for the memory 
of his own predecessors, such as Cardinal Pietro 
Ottoboni. It was also a happy circumstance that his 
rich Library was under the judicious care of one of 
the most accomplished Scholars and laborious Anti- 
quarians that Italy could then boast, Constantino 
Ruggieri. 

Ruggieri had been invited from Bologna to settle 
at Rome, where he was entrusted with the superin- 
tendence of the Press of the Propaganda. 

Cardinal Ottoboni requested him to explore the 
archives in his own princely collection, and in other 
depositories within his reach, for the examination or 
discovery of documents relating to the See of Portus, 
and to the history of St. Hippolytus ; and he com- 
missioned him to communicate the result of his 
inquiries in a Dissertation on that subject. A better 
choice could not have been made. Ruggieri under- 
took the work, and prosecuted it with vigour and 
assiduity. In the year 1740 his Dissertation was 
ready for the press, and it was thought worthy 
of being printed with the types of the Vatican. It 
was seen and eulogized by Cardinal Lambertini, 
afterwards Benedict XIV.° But unhappily before 
the entire volume could be printed Cardinal Ottoboni 
died. Ruggieri fell into distress, and then died.’ 
Eighty pages of the work had been printed, but, 


5 Lambertini, De servorum Dei Beatificatione, lib. i. c, iv. ἢ. 10. 
6 a.D. 1766. 


OF ΩΤ, HIPPOLYTUS. 261 


unfortunately, there the impression stopped. The 
edition was dispersed ; a great part of it was con- 
sumed in fireworks for the Castel S. Angelo on St. 
Peter’s Day, and, in fine, only five copies were saved, 
By a fortunate coincidence, one of these five, enriched 
with Manuscript notes, fell into the hands of a learned 
Abate of the Diocese of Porto, Achille Ruschi. In 
the year 1771 he had prepared the Dissertation in a 
complete form for publication, and it appeared at 
Rome in that year, sanctioned with the approbation 
of the Maestro di Sagro Palazzo, and inscribed to the 
reigning Pontiff, Clement XIV.’ 

This Dissertation of Ruggieri is distinguished by 
elaborate research, and critical accuracy; and is 
composed in a clear and flowing style of terse and 
elegant Latinity. It throws much light incidentally 
on the history of St. Hippolytus. It also commends 
itself to the respect and gratitude of Englishmen by 
the candid spirit and courteous temper with which 
it appreciates the learned labours of Anglican 
Divines, especially Bp. Pearson, Dr. Hammond, and 
Bp. Bull. 

It appeared convenient and requisite to refer in 
this place to this important work, on account of its 
intrinsic merits ; and because, though much has been 


7 Its title is Constantini Ruggieri De Portuensi S. Hippolyti, Episcopi 
et Martyris, Sede, Dissertatio postuma, ab Achille Ruschio Portuensis 
Dicecesis absoluta et annotationibus aucta. Rome 1771, Presidum 
Sacultate. 

It is inserted in P.G. Lumperi Historia Sanctorum Patrum August. 
Vindel. 1791, Pars viii., where it occupies 255 8vo. pages. 


262 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


recently written concerning the See of St. Hippoly- 
tus, little mention, if any, has been made of this 
Dissertation ; and it seems almost to have been 
regarded as a modern discovery, that St. Hippolytus 
was Bishop of Portus near Rome. But the fact is, 
this matter was long since set at rest ; and to write 
more upon it now would only be actum agere. The 
work of Ruggieri, published in 1771, exhausted that 
subject. It refuted in the most triumphant manner 
the theory of Le Moyne, and established, as it seems 
to me, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that St. 
Hippolytus, the scholar of St. Irenzeus, the Bishop 
and Martyr of the third century, whose character and 
works were held in high esteem and veneration by 
the Christian Church in his own and succeeding 
generations, and whose memory is revered in a 
particular manner by the Church of Rome, was 
Bishop of Portus, the Roman harbour at the northern 
mouth of the Tiber, whence he is often called by 
Ancient Authors, not only “ Bishop of Portus, or of 
the Harbour near Rome,” but is designated frequently 
as “a Roman Bishop,” and sometimes as “ Bishop of 
the City,” and even “Bishop of Rome:”® for the 


® See Nicephor. Callist., iv. 31, and the Authorities in Fabricius, 
Hippolyti Opera, i. p. viiii—x., and ibid. i. 42—47, and Ruggieri, 
Pp. 478—493, (cf. pp. 518. 520. 522. 525,) where numerous examples of 
these designations are given; Ruggieri sums up the testimony of 
Christian Antiquity concerning St. Hippolytus as follows, p. 493 : ‘‘ All 
doubt concerning his Episcopate will vanish, si disertissima Prudentii, 
Leontii, Anastatii aliorumque qui IV Ecclesize Szculo usque ad 
Nicephorum XIII. seeculi Scriptorem floruerunt testimonia sedulo 
perpendere volumus, qui uno ore testantur magnum Hippolytum 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.. 263 


‘ancient Roman Province was sometimes called 
Rome.® 

This Dissertation also possesses a peculiar interest, 
and is entitled to particular regard, on account of 
its intimate connexion with the Diocese of Hippoly- 
tus, and with the See of Rome. It owed its origin 
to one of the Episcopal successors of Hippolytus ; it 
was completed by one of the Clergy of the Diocese 
which he had governed ; it was commended by one 
Bishop of Rome, Benedict XIV., and was dedicated 
to another, Clement XIV. It was produced, there- 
fore, under the sanction of the Bishop of Portus, and 
under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome. It may 
be regarded as embodying the judgment of the 
Roman Church concerning St. Hippolytus. It may 
be considered as a mark of her respectful homage to 
his memory, and as a pledge to receive with favour 
what comes before her with the impress of his 
name. 


In my former edition I wrote what has been 
printed above. But since the publication of that 
edition, a very learned person, Dr. Ignatius von D6l- 
linger, has impugned these conclusions, and I must 
therefore ask permission to say something more on 
this subject. 

Episcopum et Martyrem, vel Portuensis Ecclesiz Pastorem, vel 
Romanum, id est Romanz Provincise Episcopum fuisse.” 
9 Ruggieri, p. 522. Veteres “" 5. Hippolytum Episcopum Romanum 


yocant ; quia Portuensis Episcopus fuit, que urbs in Suburbicaria 
arses : ; 
Provincia sita est, quam Greeci Romam vocant.” 


264 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


Let me state Dr. Dollinger’s objections in his own 
words ;' he thus writes :-— 

1. “I would first point out that Portus Romanus 
in the third century was no City, while the neighbour- 
ing Ostia continued to flourish as such. 

2. “That there was no Bishop of Portus before the 
year 313 or 314. 

3. “That a Bishop Hippolytus of Portus was 
altogether unknown in the West, and likewise in the 
East till the seventh century. 

4. “ That the unanimous tradition of the Eastern 
Church represented Hippolytus as a Roman Bishop. 

5. “ That the later Byzantine Writers, the Author of 
the Paschal Chronicle, George Syncellus, Anastasius, 
and Zonaras, were misled by the spurious Acts of 
Aurea to make him Bishop of Portus. 

6. “That Hippolytus, according to his own asser- 
tions, regarded himself as the rightful Bishop of Rome 
of his time. 

7. “ That Hippolytus could not have been at the 
same time a member of the Roman Presbytery and 
Bishop of Rome.” 

To take these objections in order. 

I. Dr. Dollinger’s assertion that Portus was no City 
in the third century has been contravened by the 
learned Roman Archeologist Cavaliere de Rossi, in 
the “ Bullettino di Archeologia” published at Rome in 
1866. He there says (p. 37), “ The siteand name of 
Portus are very celebrated. in the records of the 


1 Hippolytus und Kallistus, p. 73. 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 265 


primitive Church. I find the name more frequently 
commemorated there than that of Ostia.” He then 
proceeds to cite thirteen ancient inscriptions in 
evidence of its early Christian celebrity. 

2. Cavaliere de Rossi also combats Dr. Dollinger’s 
second assertion, that Portus could not have had a 
Bishop before the beginning of the fourth century. 
A Bishop of Portus subscribed his name to the decrees 
of the Council of Arles, A.D. 317 (Concil. Mansi, ii. 
p. 477. Labbe, i.1429). But in all probability (says, 
De Rossi) he was not the first Bishop of Portus. The 
Christian documents which have been lately discovered 
at Portus prove it to have been a rich and populous 
city long before the age of Constantine ; and there is 
good reason to believe (adds De Rossi) that it was 
opulent and thickly peopled in the second and third 
centuries. The Episcopal Sees (he says) of the 
primitive Church were numerous, and inasmuch as 
Christianity flourished in very early times at Portus, 
there is good reason to believe that it had an Epis- 
copal See, distinct from that of Ostia, before the 
Council of Arles. 

3, 4, 5. On the assertion of Dr. Déllinger that 
no one in the West knew Hippolytus to be Bishop 
of Portus, Cavaliere de Rossi pertinently refers 
(p. 42) to the Hymn of Prudentius early in the fifth 
century, which speaks of Hippolytus as Head of 
the Christian Church at Portus. (See above, chapter 
1%) p~TOL) 

The local tradition from time immemorial of Portus 


266 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


itself (where is a tower and church of St. Hippolytus) 
is not to be despised. The mention of Portus in the 
personal narrative of St. Hippolytus (above, chapter 
vi. p. 76), seems to confirm the belief of his connexion 
with it. : 

Dr. Déllinger acknowledges * that Hippolytus was 
sometimes called by contemporary writers ἐπίσκοπος 
ἐθνῶν, “ Bishop of the Nations ;” and it has been well 
observed by Baron Bunsen,’ and by the present Bishop 
of Durham,’ that his residence at Portus, where he was 
martyred according to Prudentius, qualified him for 
that office. As was before remarked, Portus, being 
the harbour of the Imperial City,* was thronged with 
strangers, Greeks, Asiatics, Africans, Merchants, Ship- 
men and Soldiers, Philosophers, Physicians, Ambas- 
sadors, Astrologers, Christians, Jews, and Heathens 
flocking to Rome; and his learning and ready elo- 
quence in the Greek language, and perhaps also in 
Latin, admirably fitted the “ Bishop of Portus” to be 
also “ Bishop of the Nations.” 

Dr. Dollinger also affirms that Hippolytus was 
never called “Bishop of Portus by any Eastern 
writer” before the seventh century. 

But this, again, is a doubtful assertion. 


? Pp. 338—342. 

3 Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 52, where are some excellent 
remarks ; more valuable as coming from one who has done so much 
for Roman topography. 

4 Bishop Lightfoot in the Journal of Philology, i. p. 108. 

5 It is an interesting circumstance that St. Ignatius, when carried by 
sea to Rome, in the time of Trajan, was landed at Portus. 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 267 


In the Paschal Chronicle (p. 4, ed. Dindorf, 1832) 
there is a quotation from “Peter, Bishop of Alexan- 
dria and Martyr,” who died A.D. 311, and that quota- 
tion embodies an extract (p. 12) from “ Hippolytus, 
Martyr and Bishop of Portus near Rome.” 

The concurrent testimonies of persons writing in 
such different places as Anastasius,’ secretary of the 
Roman Church in the Episcopate of several succes- 
sive Popes, who had intimate official relations with 
Rome itself, of George Syncellus,’ and Zonaras, and 
Nicephorus Callisti,> who all agree in designating 


him as “ Bishop of Portus Romanus,” ἢ 


clearly show 
that there was a considerable amount of early tradi- 
tion in favour of that opinion. 

May I be pardoned for expressing surprise that 
Dr. Dollinger should allege that all these writers were 
led blindfold by such a wretched production as the 
spurious Acts of Aurea, which carry their own con- 
viction in their face? That any Greek Ecclesiastical 
Authors should have paid any heed to so despicable 
a Latin fabrication and absurd tissue of fables, is in- 
credible. Tillemont thus describes them,’ “ Les actes 


6 Anastasius Ecclesise Romanz Presbyter et Apocrisiarius ad 
Theodotium Gangrensem ; in the seventh century, Bibl. Patr. xii. 858. 

7 Georgius Syncellus in the eighth century, ed. Goar, p. 358. 
Fabric. Hippol. i. 42. 

8 Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, Eccl. Hist. iv. 31. 

9 Zonaras, inthe twelfth century, says that Hippolytus flourished under 
Urbanus (Annal. tom. ii. ap. Fabric. Hippol. p. x.). His words are 
remarkable : OipBavod τῆς ᾿Επισκοπῆς Tis Ῥωμαίων πόλεως προεστῶτος 
καὶ Ἱππόλυτος ἤνθει, ἀνὴρ ἱερώτατος καὶ σοφώτατος ᾿Επίσκοπος τοῦ κατὰ 
Ῥώμην Πόρτου γενόμενος. 

1 Mémoires, iii. 680. Cp. 677. 801. 


268. ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE 


de Ste. Aurée, ou Aure, qui fournissent grand nombre 
de Martyrs a Baronius sont pleins de fautes, selon lui- 
mesme. L’auteur met Ste. Aure, St. Hippolyte, et 
les autres de leur compagnie sous l’Empereur Claude ; 
ils semblent l’entendre du premier, selon ces paroles 
de St. Censorin, ‘ Christus temporibus nostris dignatus 
est venire a Patre.’” The Acts of St. Aurea are pro- 
bably more recent than the seventh century, and could 
not have been followed by Anastasius. 

4—6. It is alleged by Dr. Ddllinger that Hippolytus 
is designated by the unanimous voice of the Eastern 
Church as “ Bishop of Rome,” and that according to 
his own assertion (in the newly-discovered Treatise), 
he regarded himself as the rightful Bishop of Rome, 
—in fact, that Hippolytus was the first Anti-pope. 

On this allegation it may be observed that Eusebius 
(vi. 20) did not know of what See St. Hippolytus was 
Bishop ; and that St. Jerome, who lived in the East, 
but who had been Secretary of Pope Damasus, says 
that he could not discover the name of the City of 
which he was Bishop (de Script. Eccl. 61). If St. 
Hippolytus had been “ Bishop of Rome,” if he had 
been an Anti-pope,—for fourteen years,as Dr. Déllin- 
ger supposes,—all this would be unaccountable. 

The name of the first Anti-pope was Novatian, and 
his acts were known everywhere. If Hippolytus 
had been another Novatian, what a commotion 
would such an assumption have made in all 
Christendom! Ignorance of such a fact on the 
part of Eusebius and St. Jerome would have been 


OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. . 269 


inexplicable. But it is not extraordinary that Euse- 
bius and Jerome should not have known the name of 
his See. Eusebius had not much knowledge of Western 
affairs, as we have seen above (chapter x. p. 189). 
Hippolytus had another title, “ Bishop of the Nations” 
(as Dr. Dollinger allows), and this general title pro- 
bably did much to throw his special title into the 
shade. 

Dr. Dollinger says truly that Hippolytus is called 
by some ancient authors a “Roman Bishop,” or 
“Bishop of Rome.” Yes; and this is not wonderful. 
Portus, being the harbour of Rome, would have been 
associated in the minds of persons at a distance with 
Rome itself; it is not surprising that a Bishop of 
-Rome’s harbour should have been called a Roman 
Bishop, or, for shortness’ sake, a Bishop of Rome. 

Indeed, it was not uncommon for Bishops of Sees 
near Rome to be called Roman Bishops, or Bishops of 
Rome: thus the Council of Sardica, A.D. 347, is 
described as “gathered by the grace of God from 
Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa.? But it is incredible 
that a Bishop of the Czty of Rome should ever have 
been called Bishop of Portus, “ Bishop of Rome's har- 
bour,’ as Hippolytus (we have seen) often is. 

If Hippolytus had been an Anti-pope, certainly no 
Ecclesiastical writer after his death would have ever 
deigned to give him the title of Bishop of Rome. 
Such an ascription would have been an insult to the 


2 Concil. Labbe, ii. 694. Cp. Ruggieri, p. 518.525, who says, ‘‘Roma 
pro provincia Romana, Italia pro provincia Mediolanensi usurpatur.” 


270 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


greatest Church of the West, and to the whole 
Catholic Church. What Ecclesiastical writer ever 
gave the title of “ Bishop of Rome” to the Anti-pope 
Novatian ? 

That Hippolytus opposed two Bishops of Rome in 
succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, on the ground 
of heretical doctrines propagated by them, is abun- 
dantly clear from his own narrative ; but there is no 
evidence whatever in that record to show that he ever 
assumed to himself the place or title of Bishop of 
Rome. 

Dr. Dodllinger’s seventh and last allegation, that 
“ Hippolytus could not have been at the same time a 
member of the Roman Presbytery and Bishop of 
Rome,” is, I believe, directed against Baron Bunsen. 
As it does not concern anything stated by me, I do 
not feel called upon to notice it ; and I should have 
been very thankful to have been spared the necessity 
of making any other comments than those of assent 
on what has been said on this subject by a person 
who is justly regarded by members of the English 
Church with such deep feelings of veneration and 
affection, both on public and private grounds, as Dr. 
von Dollinger. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


On the Theory of Development of Christian Doctrine, 
as applied to the Writings of St. Hippolytus. 


IN the preceding Chapter, we were led to notice in- 
cidentally certain allegations that have been made 
concerning the doctrine of St. Hippolytus. 

It has been affirmed by an eminent person,’ that 
St. Hippolytus “makes the generation of Christ 
temporary ;” and it is implied, that he did not believe 
in the existence of the Son, as the Son, from eternity; 


and he is even charged by him with not teaching the 
doctrine of His Divinity.’ 


1 Cardinal Newman, in his ‘‘ Essay on the Development of Christian 
Doctrine,” p. 13, says that ‘*St. Hippolytus speaks as if he were 
ignorant of our Lord’s Eternal Sonship.” 

2 Cardinal Newman says, ibid. p. 14, ‘‘ If we limit our views of the 
teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Hippolytus is 
a Photinian.” The doctrine of Photinus is thus described by St. Au- 
gustine (Heres. 44, 45) : ‘‘ Christum non semper fuisse dicunt sed Ejus 
initium ex quo de Maria natus est asseverant, nec Eum aliquid amplius 
quam hominem putant; ἰδία heresis aliquando cujusdam Artemonis 
fuit.” And therefore, in fact, Hippolytus, whom Cardinal Newman 
calls a Photinian, and who, in his ‘‘ Little Labyrinth,” had contended 
against the Artemonites, had, by anticipation, taken up arms against the 
heresy of Photinus. ; 


272 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 


The inference which is derived from these allega- 
tions, is, that the system of Christian Doctrine, now 
taught in the Church, has been of gradual growth, 
and that it did not exist in its present form in the 
primitive ages of Christendom. 

The learned writer* to whom I have referred 
maintains that the office of guiding and regulating 
“the Development of Christian Doctrine,” is a pre- 
rogative appertaining to one Person in the Church, 
who is regarded by some as her supreme and infallible 
Head on earth—the Bishop of Rome. 

Whether St. Hippolytus held the doctrine of the 
Personality of the Holy Spirit, and acknowledged the 
three Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, is a 
question which has been already examined.* Proofs 
have already been brought to show his doctrine in 
these respects.” 


3 Dr. Newman’s Essay, chap. ii. sect. ii, ‘‘On a developing 
Authority in Christianity.” 

4 Above, chap. xiv. pp. 242—252. 

’ A German Roman Catholic Theologian who had examined his 
works with care thus speaks: ‘‘ Castigatissimé loquitur sanctus Hip- 
polytus de mysterio Sanctissimz Z7inztatis apertéque declarat fidem ~ 
circa unitatem Naturze et distinctionem Personarum. . . . Sané nemo 
posset hisce temporibus magis accuraté loqui de Mysterio Trinitatis. 

. Pari preecisione loquitur sanctus ille Episcopus de Divinitate ac 
consubstantialitate Verbi.” P. Gottf. Lumper, Histor. Theol. Critica, 
viii. 123—131. Bishop Bull’s judgment on the orthodoxy of St. Hip- 
polytus may be seen in his Defensio Fidei Nicene, ii. 8. 2, vol. v. 
p- 270, ed. Burton, and Dr. Grabe’s, ibid. pp. 279—285, and Dr. Water- 
land’s, iii. 40. 62. 69. 79. 91, &c., ed. Van Mildert, Oxford, 1820. It 
has been already observed, that the learned President of St. Mary 
Magdalene College, Oxford, Dr. Routh, made choice of the Homily 
of St. i a Ars against Noetus for a sound Exposition of the Catholic 


OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 273 


With regard to Dr. Newman’s allegation, that the 
Eternal Generation of the Son is not taught by Hip- 
polytus, this has been fully discussed in another place, 
and it would be superfluous to say more on that sub- 
ject here.© To prove that Hippolytus was not a 
Photinian is happily as needless. (See note, p. 271.) 


First then, let it even -be supposed, for argument’s 
sake, that St. Hippolytus and other ancient Fathers 
of the Church had spoken ambiguously or inade- 
quately, or even erroneously, concerning certain 
Articles of the Faith, now received by the Church, 
and embodied in her Creeds. 

It would not therefore follow that the Christian 
Faith did not exist, or did not exist in perfect sym- 
metry and fulness, in their age; or that they imagined 
this to be the case ; or that they did not acknowledge 
that Faith, and acknowledge it as complete ; or that 
a single iota has been added to it since their age. 

For let it be remembered that the SCRIPTURES of 
the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT existed in their time ; 
and St. Hippolytus, and the other Catholic Fathers 
acknowledged the HOLY SCRIPTURES to be Divinely 
inspired, and to be the sole and all-sufficient Rule of 
the Christian Faith. They acknowledged and affirmed, 
that the true Faith, whole and complete, is contained 
in those Scriptures. Nothing can be more explicit 


doctrine concerning the Nature of Christ. Routh, Script. Eccl. Opuscula, 


Pref. p. vii. and p. 47. Oxon. 1858. 
6 See above, chap. xiv. pp. 242—252; and my Letters to M. Gondon, 


Letter viii. pp. 210—214, ed. 3. 
Ὁ 


274 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 


than the testimony of St. Hippolytus, and of his 
master St. Irenzeus, and of other ancient Fathers to 
this effect.’ 


Next let it not be forgotten that Articles of Faith 
are confessedly mysterious; and that a careful con- 
sideration, collation, and comparison of various texts 
of Holy Scripture is requisite for the avoidance of 


7 See, for example, 5. Hippol. c. Noet. § 9. εἷς Θεὸς, ὃν οὐκ 
ἄλλοθεν ἐπιγιγνώσκομεν, ἢ ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων ypapav ... ὅσοι θεοσέ- 
βειαν ἀσκεῖν βουλόμεθα οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἀσκήσομεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν λογίων τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. Ὅσα τοίνυν κηρύσσουσιν ai θεῖαι γραφαὶ, ἴδωμεν, καὶ ὅσα 
διδάσκουσιν ἐπίγνωμεν, . .. μὴ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν προαίρεσιν μηδὲ κατ᾽ ἴδιον 
νοῦν, μηδὲ βιαζόμενοι τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διδόμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον αὐτὸς 
ἐβουλήθη διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν δεῖξαι, οὕτως ἴδωμεν. See also 8. 
Hippol. ap. Euseb. v. 28, concerning heretics, γραφὰς θείας ῥεραδιουρ- 
γήκασι. . . καταλιπόντες τὰς ἁγίας TOU Θεοῦ γραφὰς, γεωμετρίαν ἐπι- 
τηδεύουσιν ἢ οὐ πιστεύουσιν ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματι λελέχθαι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, 
καί εἰσιν ἄπιστοι ἢ ἑαυτοὺς ἡγοῦνται σοφωτέρους τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος 
ὑπάρχειν. The statements of St. Irenzeus on this subject are also very 
forcible and clear. See S. Iren. ii. 46, where he describes the doctrines 
received by the true Christian as ὅσα φανερῶς καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως ἐν ταῖς 
θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. See the whole of that eloquent chapter, and 
particularly iii. 11, where he calls the written Gospel στῦλον καὶ στήριγμα 
τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας. Other testimonies to the same effect are the following :— 

Scriptor Anon, ap. Euseb. v. 16, against the Montanist heresy, δεδιὼς 
μή πη δόξω τισὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἢ ἐπιδιατάττεσθαι TH τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ, ᾧ μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτ᾽ ἀφελεῖν δυνατόν. 
S. Athanas. c. Gentes, 1.1, αὐταρκεῖς αἱ ἁγίαι καὶ θεόδπνευστοι γραφαὶ 
πρὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν. Festal. Epist. 39, ἐν τούτοις βιβλίοις 
μόνον τὸ THs εὐσεβείας διδασκαλεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται: μηδεὶς τούτοις ἐπι- 
βαλλέτω μηδὲ τούτων ἀφαιρέσθω. S. Basil. de Fide, c. 2, φανερὰ 
ἔκπτωσις πίστεως ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν 
τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων. Richard Hooker had good cause to say, Eccl. 
Pol. ii. v. 4, “Τὸ urge anything upon the Church, requiring thereunto 
that religious assent of Christian belief wherewith the words of the Holy 
Prophets are received,—to urge anything as part of that supernatural 
and celestially revealed truth which God hath taught, and wot to show 


wt in SCRIPTURE, this did the ancient Fathers evermore think unlawful, 
impious, execrable,” 


OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 275 


error, and for the declaration οἵ truth in perfect pleni- 
tude and harmonious proportion; and that such consi- 


deration, collation, and comparison, is a work of time. 

Let it be observed, that men are prone to dwell on 
specific truths, to the neglect of others equally impor- 
tant. In dealing with Holy Scripture, they are wont 
to forget the Apostolic precept, to compare Spiritual 
things with Spiritual; and are apt to fix their eyes 
on particular texts of Scripture detached from the 
context; and are often blind to other passages of 
Scripture, which ought to be viewed in juxtaposition 
with them ; and thus they disturb the balance and 
mar the proportion of faith. 

The Catholic Fathers’ protest against this partiality 
—and no one more forcibly than St. Hippolytus.® 

The tendency of the human mind is to be driven 
by an excess of reaction from one error to its opposite 
extreme. Thus in the primitive ages of the Church, 
when Idolatry was yet dominant at Rome, the fear of 
Polytheism tended to produce Monarchianism, and it 
acted as an obstacle, in certain quarters, to the recep- 
tion of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, misconceived 
to be Tritheism. This fear of abandoning the doc. 
trine of the Divine Unity engendered Sabellianism on 


8 See, for example, c. Noetum, § 3, where he rebukes the Noetians 
for quoting the Scriptures μονόκωλα, ὦ. 6. piecemeal,—single texts, 
broken off from the context,—and refutes their false reasoning deduced 
from isolated texts, by reference to Scripture as a whole, ὁλοκλήρως, ὃ 4. 
ὁπόταν θελήσωσι πανουργεύεσθαι περικόπτουσι Tas γραφάς" SAOKANP ws 
So Tertullian c. Praxean. c. 20: Zribus capitulis totumt 
Proprium hoc est omnium heereticorum, 


T 2 


δὲ εἰπάτω. 
volunt Instrumentum cedere. 


276 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 


one side, and Photinianism on the other. So in later 
times, the dread of Sabellianism drove some into 
Arianism, and Nestorianism begat Eutychianism. 

Thus Heresies arose, and generated one an- 
other. 

But, under the all-wise and overruling Providence 
of Almighty God, Heresies were made subservient 
to the advancement of Truth. They excited the 
vigilance of orthodox Christian Teachers, and stimu- 
lated them to examine with greater diligence what 
was the teaching of HOLY SCRIPTURE in those 
particular matters, which “ Heresy went about to 
deprave.” Thus the True Faith was seen more 
clearly, and was expressed more definitely ; it was 
embodied in Confessions, and stereotyped in the 
Creeds of the Church.’ | 

But it must not be imagined, that the Truth was 


® This has been admirably stated by the Fathers themselves ; 4.9. 
Origen, Hom. ix. in Num. ‘‘ Si doctrina ecclesiastica nullis intrinsecus 
hereticorum dogmatum assertionibus cingeretur, non poterat tam clara 
et tam examinata videri fides nostra. Sed idcirco doctrinam catholicam 
contradicentium obsidet oppugnatio, ut Fides nostra non otio torpescat 
sed exercitiis elimetur.” ‘‘Illorum error nobis profuit,” says St. 
Ambrose, in De Incarn. i. 6. So St. August. iii. 2056. “ Heeretici 
abundant, et coeperunt fluctuare corda fidelium; jam tam necessitas 
facta est spiritualibus viris, qui aliquid secundum Divinitatem Domini 
Nostri Jesu Christi non solum legerant in Zvangelio, sed intellexerant, 
ut contra arma Diaboli Christi arma proferrent.” Hence he says, 
iv. p. 730, “ Ex heereticis asserta est Catholica.” See also, iii. 102. 
2055; iv. 730.978; vii. 661; viii. 33. Hence, in the words of the 
venerable Hooker, v. xlii., ‘‘ though those contentions (with heretics) 
were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath reaped by 
them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith to explain 
such things as Heresy went about to deprave.” 


OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 277 


made by being elucidated. No; not a single article 
of it was so formed. It had existed, and had ex- 
isted in its perfect plenitude, even from the beginning, 
in the pages of HOLY WRIT. 

The process here described is similar to what takes 
place in the World of Nature. The rays of the Sun 
are often veiled from our sight by clouds. But the 
Sun is shining behind them. And, when the clouds 
break and are dissolved, not a single new ray of the 
sun is created ; but it is seen more clearly, and then 
“Nube solet pulsa clarior ire dies.” 

So, when the clouds of Heresy were dispersed, no 
new article of Faith was made; no new beam of 
Divine Revelation radiated forth ; but the winds of 
Controversy had blown away the mists of Heresy,— 
the Storm had cleared the sky and purified the air, 
and the Orb of Truth was seen more clearly by the 
eye of the Church, as that Orb had shone from the 
first, in the firmament of Holy Writ. 


The question now is— | 

How was this process of elucidation performed ? 

Doubtless St. Hippolytus and the other Catholic 
Fathers admitted and affirmed, that every one is 
bound to exercise all the faculties which God has 
given him. But they did not imagine that any one 
might interpret Scripture as he pleased, or that what- 
ever scems to be truth to any man, zs truth to him. 
The “ Refutation of all Heresies” by St. Hippolytus 
is a protest against such a notion as that. 


278 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 


Again, St. Hippolytus did not acknowledge the 
existence of any “developing authority” inherent in 
the Bishop of Rome, and belonging to that See. If 
there had been such a power and privilege in that 
Church in the third century, the Church of Christ 
would have become Noetian. She would have denied 
the proper personality of her Divine Head. The 
struggle of St. Hippolytus against Zephyrinus and 
, Callistus, proves that in his view Bishops of Rome 
might become heretics, and must not be followed 
when they fall into heresy. And the Church Uni- 
versal, by professing his doctrine as true, and pro- 
scribing theirs as heretical, has pronounced him to 
have been right, and them to have been wrong. 

How, then, was it to be determined, what the true 
doctrine of Scripture is ? 

By the aid of sound Reason, disciplined and in- 
formed by Learning, and exercised with caution, in- 
dustry, and humility, and enlightened by Divine 
Grace given to earnest prayer, and controlled and 
regulated by the judgment and guidance of the 
Church Universal, to whom Christ has promised His 
Presence, and the Light of the Holy Spirit to guide 
her into all truth. 

This was the doctrine of St. Hippolytus,' and the 
other Catholic Fathers. 

Whatever, therefore, has been veceived by the 
Church Universal as the true Exposition of Scripture, 
that zs the true sense of Scripture. And the true 


1 See above, chap. vii. 


OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 279 


sense of Scripture,—that, and that alone, zs Scripture. 
And, since the Creeds have been so received, we 
believe them to contain the True Faith as propounded 
in Scripture. And since the Personality of the Holy 
Spirit and the Divine Trinity in Unity are taught in 
the Creeds, we believe that those doctrines are con- 
tained in Holy Scripture,—and that they have been 
in Scripture from the beginning. 

Therefore, even if it could be shown that St. 
Hippolytus, or any other among the ancient Fathers 
of the Church, had exaggerated a truth through fear 
of its opposite error ; or if, not being gifted with pre- 
science, they did not guard their language against 
possible misconstruction, in regard to some heresies 
which did not arise in the Church till some years after 
they were laid in their graves; or did not fully put 
forth such transcendental truths as the eternal gene- 
ration of the Son of God, before those truths had 
been impugned,—What is all this to us? What is it 
to the question before us? They received the Holy 
Scriptures. They received them as the Rule of Faith. 
They received therefore all that is in the Scriptures. 
They received all that the Church Universal, the 
Body and Spouse of Christ—to whom He has com- 
mitted the Scriptures, and whom He has commis- 
sioned to guard and interpret them—could show to 
be in those Scriptures. They received, therefore, by 
implication, and by anticipation, the Three Creeds, 
promulgated lawfully, and generally received by the 
Church. 


280 THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 


We have the Holy Scriptures ; we have the bless- 
ing of Catholic teaching, and enjoy the benefits which _ 
Almighty God in His mercy has elicited from Here- 
sies, for the victorious vindication and clearer mani- 
festation of His Truth. We have the Creeds. We 
do not see any new sun, or any single new ray of the 
sun,in them. But by their means we see the Orb of 
divine light shining more brightly. By means of the 
Creeds, the Church Universal,—acting under the 
governance of her Divine Head, Who has promised 
to be with her always, and under the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit, Whom He has sent to abide with 
her for ever,—has rendered a greater service to 
the whole World than that which, in that cele- 
brated speech, the noblest orator of Antiquity? 
said had been effected by one of his decrees for his 
own State. The Church, by means of the Creeds, 
has made the dangers of Heresy, which from time to 
time have hung over her, to pass away,—like a cloud. 


2 Demosth. de Corona, c. 56, ὃ 4, τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα τὸν τότε τῇ πόλει 
περιστάντα κίνδυνον παρελθεῖν ἐποίησεν, ὥσπερ νέφος. Longinus, de 


Sublim. c. 39. 


CHAPIER ΧΗ, 


Appeal to St. Hippolytus on the Present Claims of the 
Roman Church to Supremacy and Infalhibility. 


THE main question on which the controversy between 
the Church of Rome and the other Churches of 
Christendom hinges, is that of Papal Supremacy. 
“What is the point at issue,” says Cardinal Bellar- 
mine, “when we argue concerning the Primacy of 
the Roman Pontiff?” “It is,’ he replies, “the sum 
of Christianity.” > 

Among the arguments adduced by our Romanist 
brethren, in behalf of the Papal claim to Supremacy, 
one is urged by them with frequency and confidence, 
from a well-known passage of St. Irenzus.? 

That great Bishop and Doctor of the Church, who 
was the disciple of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, 
employs, they say, the following words in his Treatise 
on Heresy. | 

He is describing “the Church of Rome, as founded 


1 Bellarmin. de Pontifice, vol. i. p. 189, ed. 1615. De qua re agitur 
cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissime dicam, De summé rei 
Christianitatis. 

OSs ALTER: sth. % 


ἘΘΩ͂Ν APPEAL JO ST. ὨΡΡΟΣΥΧΟΝ 


by the two most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St. 
Paul,” and he then says, “ Ad anc Ecclesiam, propter 
potentiorem principalitatem, xecesse est omnem con- 
venire Ecclesiam—hoc est, eos qui sunt wudique fideles, 
—in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata 
est ea que est ab Apostolis traditio.”* 

Here, it is affirmed by Romanist Theologians, is a ° 
declaration from St. Irenzus, one of the most eminent 
Bishops of the Church in the second century after 
Christ, that “zt zs necessary for every Church, that is, 
for all believers everywhere, to conform to the Church 
of Rome, on account of its more powerful prinai- 
pality.” 

Here is a declaration, they say, of her Supremacy ; 
and an assertion that it is the duty of all Christians 
to submit to the Church of Rome. And, since the 
Bishop of Rome is the head of that Church, therefore 
all men, they affirm, are bound to pay dutiful homage 
and filial obedience to him. 

This passage may form an introduction to an Appeal 
on this important question to St. Hippolytus. Let us 
now examine the context and scope of the words of 
St. Irenzeus. 

He is arguing against Heretics. Having first re- 
futed them by reference to Holy Scripture,‘ he 
next * proceeds to encounter them by the testimony 
of the Catholic Church. 


2S. Iren. iii. 3. 

τῶν Ὁ, 

* As was usual with the primitive Catholic writers in his age. Bp. 
Pearson, Dissert. i. cap. 3, says, ‘‘ab Episcoporum successione argu- 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 283 


How was this testimony to be obtained? “It 
would be very tedious,” ° he tells them, to cite all the 
Churches of Christendom as witnesses. He will there- 
fore be content with one Church. And since he is 
writing in the West, the Church, which he will select, 
shall be a Western Church; it shall be a Church 
founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and 
Paul—a Church whose succession of Bishops was well 
authenticated and generally known—the Church of 
Rome.’ 

St. Irenzzus then introduces the passage to which 
we have just adverted. Unhappily that passage is 
known to us only through the medium of an old 
Latin Translation. The original Greek words of 


mentari solebant secundi tertiique seculi Patres adversus sui temporis 
Heereticos.” 

6 Valdé longum esset omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones. 

7 The reader may compare the very similar argument of a contem- 
porary of St. Irenzeus, Tertullian, De Preescr. Heereticor. c. 21. Constat 
omnem doctrinam, que cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et 
originalibus fidei conspirat, veritati deputandam. (. 36: Percurre 
Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsz adhuc cathedre Apostolorum suis 
locis przesident, apud quas authenticze literze eorum recitantur, sonantes 
vocem et repreesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. 

It is observable that Tertullian dwells on nearness of time to the 
Apostles, as well as identity of place, as a ground for this appeal, so that 
the appeal would lose its force in course of time, and would ultimately 
be inapplicable, as now. 

“ Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes Corinthum; Si potes in Asiam 
tendere, habes Ephesum.” 

What, we may ask, would the Roman Church say of such an appeal 
to the Churches of Ephesus and Corinth, whom she now charges with 
heresy and schism? But if the appeal to Rome is valid, so is that to 
Ephesus and Corinth. 

“* Si autem Italize adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque aucto- 
ritas preesto est.” 


284 ; APFEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


Irenzus are lost. The Latin version of them is as 
follows :— 

“Ad hanc Ecclesiam (sc. Romanam), propter 
potentiorem principalitatem, mecesse est omnem con- 
venire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, 
in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est 
ea que est ab Apostolis traditio.” 


The divines of the Church of Rome interpret these 
words to mean, that it “is necessary for every Church 
to conform to this Church, z. e. to the Church of Rome;” 
and thus they deduce a moral obligation on all men 
to submit to her. , 

Are these inferences justified by the words of 
Irenzus? 

Certainly not. 


They are at variance with the drift of his argument. 
St. Irenzeus is refuting Heretics by an appeal to the 
witness of the Church Universal. He has selected 
one Church as an exponent of that testimony. The 
Church so selected is the Church of Rome. His 
argument leads him to add that the selection is a fair 
one; and that, in appealing to one Church, the 
Church of Rome, he has virtually collected the witness 
of all. . 

And how does he show this? By reminding them, 
that the Church of Rome had been founded by the two 
most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, whom they 
knew to have suffered at Rome only about a century 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 285 


before, and from whom they could trace the succession 
of Bishops, whose names were well known to them, and 
which he himself enumerates from the first Bishop of 
Rome, Linus, to whose charge (he says) those two 
blessed Apostles committed the Roman Church, down 
to the then presiding Bishop of Rome, the twelfth in 
order, Eleutherus. 

What does he say, in the words “ad hanc Ecclesiam, 
propter potentiorem principalitatem, zecesse est omnem 
convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undique 
fideles ?” 

As to the potentior principalitas, the original words 
were probably διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν ἀρχαιότητα ; for in the 
same chapter of Irenzus in the Latim translation 
the word potentissima is the rendering of ἱκανωτάτη, 
and is applied to an Ffzstle, and means 
siderable or sufficient.” And ‘“‘principalitas”* signi- 
fies priority of time as opposed to posterioritas. 

As to what follows, he does zo¢ say that every one, 
then and for ever after, must snbmit to the Church of 
Rome. No. If that had been true, then he would 
not have said, that, “ because it would be tedious to 
appeal to a// Churches,” he would therefore appeal to 
one Church—the Church of Rome. Such a statement 


({ς 


very con- 


8 Principalitas, in the old Latin version of Irenzeus (as Stieren has 
shown), is used in the same sense as in Tertullian, for priority of time 
(see S. Iren. v.14. v.21), and is opposed to osterioritas. The argu- 
ment may be illustrated by Tertullian’s reference (see above, p. 283, 
note) to Ecclesia originales et matrices. The Church of Rome was 
the only Church in the West that was known to have been founded 
by Apostles. It had therefore a potentior principalitas, ‘‘a more 
august primitiveness.” 


286 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


would have been absurd, if Rome had been supreme 
over all Churches, and if all Churches were bound to 
conform to her. 

No one would say, It would be a tedious process to 
ascertain the opinions of all the Peers of the Realm— 
we will therefore appeal to the Crown. What, then, 
do his words mean? They signify this: That, on © 
account of the more august priority of Rome—* poten- 
tior principalitas ”—it may be taken for granted that 
every Church coincides with Rome, and is represented 
by her; that is, that all believers, from all quarters, 
agree with her; or, in other words, every Church (he 
says) in which the tradition from the Apostles has been 
preserved by those who exist everywhere, Ζ. 6. by true 
Catholics, as opposed to heretics, who existed only in 
particular places. Hence, then, he means to say, his 
reference to Rome is a just one ; and by appealing to 
that Church he has virtually appealed to all Churches, 
whose testimony may be supposed to be embodied 
and involved in hers. 


Let it be observed, further, that St. Irenzeus, so far 
from countenancing in this passage the doctrine of 
Papal Supremacy, as taught by Romish Divines, does 
in fact, by implication, overthrow the foundation on 
which they make it rest. 

They base that doctrine on the words of our 
Blessed Lord to St. Peter ;* whom they affirm to be 
the Rock on which the Church is built. And they 


9 Matth. xvi. 18, ‘* On this Rock I will build My Church.” 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 287 


then proceed to say, that the Bishop of Rome is the 
Rock of the Church, by virtue of his succession to 
St. Peter. | 

This is their assertion. 

But what is the language of St. Irenzeus? 

He refers to the Church of Rome, as founded by 
the ¢wo most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. 
He appeals to the Bishop of Rome as succeeding 
Linus, who, he says, was placed in that see by the 
. same ¢wo Apostles. And thus he shows, in a striking 
manner, that he knew nothing of the Romish theory 
which claims infallibility and supremacy for St. Peter 
alone, as Head of the Church, and also claims the 
same prerogatives for the Bishops of Rome, as suc- 
cessors of St. Peter. 


In confirmation of the above interpretation, let us 
revert to the fact, that the words quoted from St. 
Irenzus are not his original words, but are only a 
Latin Version of them. 

This is to be borne in mind. 

Since this Old Latin Version is a literal one (as is 
evident by comparison of it with the Greek in those 
passages where the Greek has been preserved), it is 
probable, and almost certain, that where we now read 
in the Latin “ xecesse est,” St. Irenzeus wrote ἀνάγκη. 

The Greek word ἀνάγκη, it is well known, often im- 
plies a reasonable inference,—not a moral obligation. 
Such an use is common to all Greek Writers in prose 
and verse ; πολλή y ἀνάγκη---πᾶσ᾽ ἐστ᾽ avayxn—in the 


288 APPEAL ΤῸ ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


Greek dramatic writers, and in the Dialogues of Plato, 
signify simply, “ By all means,” or, “it follows of 
course that tt ts so, or will be so’ Similarly our 
Blessed Lord says (Matth. xviii. 7 ; cp. Luke xvii. 1), 
“it zs necessary (ἀνάγκη) that offences should come.” 
The same is the case in Ecclesiastical Writers. Thus 
when Theodoret says,’ ἀνθρώπους ἀνάγκη προσπταίειν 
ὄντας, he certainly does not intend to assert that it 
is a moral duty for a man to err—no; but that 
“humanum est errare,’ and that no mortal is free from 
error. When St. Chrysostom says,? ἀνάγκη Tov ὁμι- 
λοῦντα θεῷ κρείττονα γενέσθαι θανάτου καὶ πάσης δῖα- 
φθορᾶς, he does not mean to affirm that it is a moral 
duty for a man, who converses with God, to conquer 
death and destruction. This would be a presump- 
tuous speech. But he means, that a man who holds 
habitual intercourse with God by prayer and medi- 
tation, does by natural consequence become superior to 
dissolution. So again, when St. Hippolytus says,’ 
in his description of the lower world, φωτὸς τοίνυν ἐν 
τούτῳ τῷ χωρίῳ μὴ καταλάμποντος, ἀνάγκη σκότος 
διηνεκῶς τυγχάνειν, he certainly cannot mean to assert 
any moral necessity for the existence of darkness, but 
what he means is, that, light not being admitted, 


darkness is the necessary result.* 


? Eccl. Hist. iv. 5. 

* These words are quoted from St. Chrysostom in ‘‘ Hele’s Select 
Offices of Private Devotion,” published by the ‘‘ Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge,” and form the appropriate motto of that excellent 
Manual, republished by Mr. Joshua Watson. 

8 De Universo, p. 220, ed. Fabr. 

* Several examples of a similar use of ἀνάγκη may be seen in the 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 289 


Such then is the signification of the word ἀνάγκη, 
which Irenzeus appears to have used, and which is 
represented by xecesse est in the passage before us. 
And we may observe, in confirmation of what has now 
been said on that point, that the word ἀνάγκη is used 
in this sense by Plato in his Timzus, and is translated 
“ necesse est” by Cicero.’ In like manner Virgil (4En. 
vi. 737) says, 

Penitusque mecesse est 
Multa diu concreta modis inolescere miris ; 


and Milton (Par. Lost, xii. 9), 


Objects divine . 
Must needs impair and weary human sense. 


On the whole, it is clear that Irenzeus did not mean 
to affirm any moral obligation constraining all men 
to submit to the Church of Rome. 

He knew the Church of Rome well. He knew her 
to have been founded in the preceding century by 
St. Peter and St. Paul; he knew that her first Bishop 
was placed there by them. He knew her to be an 
orthodox Church. But he does not state it to be the 
duty of any other Church to submit to her, even as 
fragment of Maximus, who appears to have been contemporary with 
St. Irenzeus, in Routh’s Reliquie, ii. 88. 90. 102. 107. 

5 The words of Plato are,* τὸν νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐραστὴν ἀνάγκη 
τὰς τῆς ἔμφρονος φύσεως αἰτίας πρώτας μεταδιώκειν, Which Cicero renders, 
‘* Tllum qui intelligentize sapientizque se amatorem profitetur mecesse est 


intelligentis sapientisque naturze primas causas conquirere.” At the 
beginning of his ‘ De Officiis,’ Cicero uses ‘ ofortet’ in the same sense. 





* Plato, Timzeus, 46. D. vol. vii. p. 32. Stallbaum, Leips. 1824. Cp. 
Cicero, vii. p. 942, ed. Ernesti, Oxon. 1810. 


U 


290 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON ROMAN 


she then was. Much less, not knowing, as he could 
not know, what she would Jdecome in future ages, does 
he lay upon all Churches in coming generations the 
responsibility of accommodating themselves to her 
opinions, whatever they may be. 


Let us now advance a step further. 

We (as was before observed) do not possess the 
original Greek of St. Irenzeus, in this passage. It is 
lost. We have only the old Latin Version of it. 

But the original Greek was extant in the third 
century ; it was in the hands of St. Hippolytus. He 
was a Scholar of St. Irenzeus, and has made frequent 
use of that Original in the Treatise on Heresy before 
us. 

St. Hippolytus had this passage before him in the 
_ original Greek. He had the advantage of personal 
intercourse with St. Irenzeus ; he was his pupil, had 
heard his lectures, and gave an abstract of them to 
the world. He was formed in his school. 

How then did St. Hippolytus understand this 
passage of St. Irenzeus? How did he show that he 
understood it, by his own practice ? 

This becomes an interesting topic, not merely as 
bearing on the passage itself, but as of far more 
extensive import. For it aids us in deciding aright a 
question on which the controversy hinges between the 
Church of Rome and the other Churches of Christen- 
dom ; viz.— 


; Whether the claim now put forth by the Bishop 


CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY AND INFALLIBILITY. 291 


of Rome to Spiritual Supremacy is an equitable 
claim? Was it acknowledged as such by the primitive 
Church ? 

2. Whether the Papal claim to Infallibility is a just 
claim or not? Was it admitted—was it known—in 
primitive times ? 

An answer to these inquiries is contained in the 
newly-discovered Volume before us. 

It exhibits the condition of the Church of Rome, 
and displays the conduct and teaching of two Bishops 
of Rome in succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, in 
the writer's own age, the earlier part of the third 
century, soon after the decease of St. Irenzus, not 
more than a hundred years after the death of the 
last surviving Apostle. 

The person who wrote this history, was a scholar of 
St. Irenzeus ; he was a Bishop who passed a part of 
his life near Rome; one who was honoured in his 
day, and has ever since been honoured, as among the 
most eminent Teachers of the Church; one, whom 
the Church of Rome herself now venerates asa Martyr, 
and commemorates as a Saint, in her Breviary ; one, 
whose Statue she received with honour within the 
doors of the Vatican, from which it has now been 
removed to the Lateran Museum—St. Hippolytus. 

What then is his testimony with respect to the 
Bishop of Rome? Did he regard him as Supreme 
Head of the Church Universal ? Did he think it the 
duty of all men, did he think it his own duty, to 
submit to him as such? Did he venerate him as 

U 2 


292 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON ROMAN CLAIMS 


‘Infallible? Does he give any intimation that the 
Bishops of Rome were looked upon as Supreme or 
Infallible by others, or even by themselves? Had 
the Bishops of Rome put forth any claims to 
Supremacy or Infallibility in that age ? 

In replying to these questions, let us make all due 
allowances, Let us take into consideration the cir- 
cumstances in which the two successive Bishops of 
- Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus, were placed. They 
lived in a semi-heathen city. The clergy and laity 
of the Roman Church were not gifted with Learning.° 
The Latin Church had few eminent Teachers then. 
In controverted questions of Theology, they had not 
the benefit of dogmatic decisions, such as we possess 
in the Creeds. They were liable to be swayed by the 
eager partisanship of heretical teachers, resorting to 
Rome from Asia,’ and bringing with them the rest- 
less spirit and dialectic shrewdness of the East,° and 
bearing down upon them with an array of Scriptural 
texts torn from their context, and not interpreted by 


6 Bp. Pearson, Diss. i. c. 13, contrasts the Roman Christians of that 
age with the Easterns in that respect, “ipsi alumni in e4 urbe nati et 
educati Christiani (2, 6. Romani) qui eo tempore propter fidem celebres, 
propter doctrinam aut literarum scientiam non aded  preeclarum 
testimonium nacti sunt.” 

7 Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, and Sabellius, all 
came in person to Rome. 

8. What Juvenal says of Greek and Asiatic Vices, Philosophical 
Systems and Superstitions, finding their way to Rome and flowing 
into it, 

*«Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes ”—iii. 62, &c. 
is true of Heresies discharging their streams from the same countries 
into the same reservoir. 


TO SUPREMACY AND INFALLIBILITY, 293 


reference to the general scope of Scripture, but by 
subtle syllogistic processes, derived from the schools 
of human Philosophy, and inapplicable to the 
mysteries of Faith. The Bishops of Rome, in that 
age, were not a match for such disputants. They 
had also a dread—a reasonable one—of Polytheism. 
The City in which they dwelt was crowded with false 
deities. Wherever they turned their eyes, they wit- 
nessed the vicious and debasing effects of Idolatry. 
They heard the terrible denunciations sounding in 
Scripture against it. The Unity of the True God 
must be maintained at any rate against the manifold 
pretensions of the pagan Pantheon. Hence there 
naturally existed at Rome a predisposition to what 
is commonly called the Monarchian System of 
Theology. 

And here we may remark, that, if the Trinitarian 
doctrine is not true, its maintenance in the primitive 
Church is unaccountable. All antecedent probability 
was against it. The doctrine of Three Persons, each 
of them Divine, could never have risen spontaneously 
in a Church whose prevailing spirit was a dread of 
Polytheism.” There was much in the Church at that 
time to prevent the spread of the doctrine of the 
Trinity—nothing to produce it. The predisposition 
to Monarchianism showed itself in two opposite forms. 


9 The common question with which the Sabellians accosted the 
orthodox, especially of the simpler sort, when they met them was, 
ὦ οὗτοι, ἕνα θεὸν ἔχομεν ἢ τρεῖς θεούς ; Well, my friends, have we one 
God or three? Epiphan. Heeres. 62. 


294 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


One was the heresy of Theodotus and Artemon,' 
which denied the Divinity of Christ; the other, the 
heresy of Noetus, which did not acknowledge the 
Son of God to be the Word,’ and denied the distinct 
and proper Personality of the Son, and affirmed that 
the Son is the same as the Father, under a different 
name.® 

Between this Scylla and Charybdis of two Heresies 
the Catholic Church had to steer her course. To 
adopt another illustration, of a Scriptural character, 
supplied by an ancient writer,’ who combated both 
these heresies, the Blessed Son of God was crucified 
afresh between two malefactors. The one acknow- 
ledged Him to be Man, but would not worship Him 
as God; the other confessed Him to be God and 


1 On the doctrine of Theodotus, see Philosophumena, p. 257. Epiphan. 
c. Heres. xxxiv., sive liv. p. 462, ed. Petavii, Colon. 1682. 

2 The Noetian argument was, that it was a new thing to call the Son 
the Word, ξένον μοι φέρεις, λόγον λέγων υἱὸν, S. Hippol. c. Noet. xv. 
According to the Noetian and Sabellian theology, the man Jesus decame 
the Son of God by communication of the Word, which it did not regard 
as a Person, but as a property of the Divine Nature. To which St. 
Hippolytus replies from the Apocalypse, xix. 11, ‘‘that the Word of 
God is He Who was from the beginning, and has now been sez into the 
World.” —c. Noet. xv. τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦτον ὄντα ax’ ἀρχῆς καὶ νῦν 
ἀπεσταλμένον. 

3 On the Heresy of Noetus, see Epiphanius, xxxvii. sive lvii. p. 479. 
The Article of Epiphanius on Noetus is derived in a great measure from 
the Homily of St. Hippolytus (ed. Fabr. ii. 5— 20), but without any 
mention of his name. Epiphanius, p. 481, contrasts the heresy of 
Noetus with that of Theodotus, and shows that they owed their origin 
to similar causes. 

4 Novatian de Trin. ὃ 30, ‘quasi inter duos latrones crucifigitur 


Dominus, et excipit hzreticorum istorum, ex utroque latere, sacrilega 
convitia.” 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 295 


Man, but would not acknowledge His Divine Per- 
sonality. 

Each of these Heresies was coupled with a Truth ; 
each struggled against the other, by means of the 
Truth it possessed. The Artemonite rightly main- 
tained against the Noetian, that the Son is not the 
Father; the Noetian rightly affirmed against the 
Artemonite, that the Son is God. Between the 
Artemonite and the Noetian, the Church held her 
place. She retained the truth, and rejected the error, 
of each. She affirmed that the Son is God, as well as 
Man; and that the Son, Who is God, is a distinct 
Person from God the Father. 

This was the position of the Church ; this was the 
doctrine of St. Hippolytus. 

It does not appear that any Roman Bishop was 
betrayed into the opinion, which taught heretically 
that Christ is a mere man in whom the Godhead 
dwelt in an eminent degree. But it is clear from the 
recital contained in the Ninth Book of the recently- 
discovered Treatise on Heresy, that two Bishops of 
Rome in succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, fell 
into the opposite heresy—that of Noetus.° 

It is not necessary to dwell on the motives of this 
apostasy, or on the practices with which it was 
accompanied, or on the results by which it was 
followed. But it is requisite to state the fact. These 
two Bishops of Rome lapsed into heresy, in a primary © 
article of the Christian Faith, and in opposition to the 

5 See above, chap. vi. pp. 73—75. 87—89. 


296 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


exhortations of Orthodox Teachers. They main- 
tained that heresy, and propagated it by their official 
authority, as Bishops of Rome. They promulgated 
publicly a doctrine, which the Church of Rome her- 
/ self, with all other Churches of Christendom, now 
declares to be heretical. 


Hence it is apparent, that Bishops of Rome may err, 
' and have erred—that they may err and have erred, as 
Bishops of Rome—in matters of Faith. 

Therefore the Bishop of Rome is not Infallible ; and 
the Church of Rome, in the Vatican Council oa 
July 18th, 1870, in asserting him to be infallible in 
matters of faith and of morals, has greatly erred ; and 
has given another proof that the Church of Rome is 
not infallible, and has riveted herself in error, by 
making it almost impossible for herself to recant. 


Next with regard to Supremacy. 

When Zephyrinus and Callistus fell into heresy, in 
the earlier part of the third century, and when they 
endeavoured to disseminate their false doctrine, they 
were resisted by St. Hippolytus. 

He did not imagine that he was bound to conform 
to them in their doctrine. On the contrary, he stood 
forth boldly and rebuked them. He has thus given 
a practical reply to the question, which has been 
raised concerning the sense of St. Irenzus, his master, 
in the passage recited above. Hippolytus certainly 
had never learnt from him that every Church, 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 297 


and every Christian, must submit to the Bishop of 
Rome. 

Let it not be said, that he merely resisted Zephy- 
rinus and Callistus from a transient impulse of passion, 
and swayed by the feelings of the moment. His resist- 
ance was deliberate; it was a resistance of many 
years. Not only when Zephyrinus and Callistus were 
alive, did he think it his duty to contend against them 
and their heresy ; but when they were in their graves, 
he sate down and committed to writing the history of 
their Heresy, and of his own opposition to it. And 
he published that history to the World, in order that 
none might be deluded by the false doctrine which 
those Roman Bishops had propagated, and which was 
disseminated after their death by some who had been 
deceived by them. 

He published that History after the death of 
Callistus, and probably in the time of his successor 
Urbanus. He affirms that he wrote his Treatise in 
the discharge of his duty as a Bishop of the Church.° 
Nothing occurs in the whole course of the Ten Books 
to suggest any surmise that he had encountered any 
Ecclesiastical censure, on the ground of his having 
opposed the heretical teaching of Zephyrinus and 
Callistus ; or that, by this publication, he contravened 
the just authority of the Bishop of Rome at the time 
when he published his work. Nothing exists in it to 
excite any suspicion, that, however the Church of 
Rome might regret the facts which his treatise related, 


6 See Lib. i. p. 3. 


298 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


she made any remonstrance against the publication, 
or regarded it as a breach of order and discipline. 
On the contrary, he promises himself the gratitude of 
the world for it.’ And he seems to have not been 
disappointed. The veneration in which his memory 
was held at Rome asa Teacher of Catholic Truth 
indicates this. 


Such was the conduct of St. Hippolytus. Such is 
his commentary—the commentary of his life—on the 
teaching of his master, St. Irenzeus, concerning the 
Church of Rome. | 

It does not appear from the narrative before us, 
that the Bishops of Rome themselves, in the third — 
century, entertained any idea that they were Supreme | 
Heads of the Church, or that Christians and Churches 
were bound to submit to them as such. 

St. Hippolytus was indeed charged by Zephyrinus 
and Callistus with being a Ditheist, because he would 
not say with them that the Father and the Son are 
one Divine Being under two different names. But we 
can discover no intimation that they put forth any 
claim to Supremacy, and much less to Infallibility,* or 
that he was accused of heresy as one who resisted the 
Divine Head of the Church, and rebelled against the 
Vicegerent of Christ on earth, because he opposed the 
Bishop of Rome. 


? See Lib. i. p. 3, and Lib. ix. p. 309. 

8 Indeed, as we have seen above, p. 182, from the “* Liber Diurnus ” 
of the Popes themselves, they had no notion that they were infallible, in 
the eighth century, and they condemned one of their number as a heretic. 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 299 


Let not therefore the Divines of Rome censure us 
‘as innovators, because we do not acknowledge the 
Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the Church ; 
and as Infallible in matters of faith and morals. 

We tread in the ancient paths, which we should be 
deserting for new and devious ways, if we admitted 
claims—claims urged as of Divine Right and in 
the name of Christ—but not authorized by Holy 
Scripture, and unknown to the primitive Church. 

But, on the other hand, the Bishops of Rome, by 
putting forth such claims in Christ’s name, and by 
endeavouring to enforce those claims on all men and 
on all Churches, as terms of Church-communion, 
and by presuming to put forth new dogmas, such as 
that of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed 
Virgin (which contravenes the doctrine of Christ’s 
unique sinlessness), and which one Pope, Pius IX., 
made to be an article of faith on December 8th, 1854, 
and which his successor, Leo XIII., reiterated by cele- 
brating on December 8th, 1879,’ the first Jubilee of 


9 The present Pope, Leo XIII., attended by sixteen Cardinals and 
a large number of Bishops, delivered from his pontifical throne in the 
hall of the Consistory of the Vatican, an oration on that occasion (Dec. 
8, 1879) to the representatives of all the Dioceses of Italy. He then 
uttered the following remarkable words :—‘‘ La Concezione Immacolata 
ci rivela il segreto della potenza grandissima di Maria sopra il comune 
nemico (Satan).—Giacché ne insegna la fede, che Maria fin dai primordii 
del mondo fu destinata ad exercitare contro il Demonio e contro il suo 
seme implacabile ed eterna inimicizia, ‘7zmzmicitias ponam inter te et 
mulierem,’ e che fin dal primo istante dell’ essere suo pote schiacciargli 
vittoriosamente la superba cervice, ‘/psa conteret caput tuum’ (Genesis 
iii. 15). And thus, on that memorable occasion, the Roman Pontiff, 
who claims infallibility in matters of Faith, proved himself fallible, and 
greatly erred, by misinterpreting that divine prophecy,—the first 


800 APPEAL ΤῸ ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


that promulgation, are chargeable with innovations,— 
and with such innovations as are contrary to Christian 
Charity, as well as Christian Truth, and have rent the 
Church asunder, and are therefore such, that no gifts 
or graces can compensate for them.’ 


If the claims which are put forth by the Bishops of 
Rome to Infallibility and Universal Supremacy are 
not just,—we are compelled very reluctantly to say it, 
—then there is no alternative, they are nothing short 
of blasphemy. For they are claims to participation 
in the attributes of God Himself. And if He does 
not authorize these claims, they are usurpations of 
His Divine prerogatives. They therefore who abet 
those claims are fighting against Him. They are 
defying Him, Who “is a jealous God, and will not 
give His honour to another,’ and Who is “a con- 
suming fire.’* May they therefore take heed in time, 
lest they incur His malediction! And since. they 


prophecy in Scripture (Gen. iii. 15), and by ascribing to a Woman (the 
Blessed Virgin) the power which Almighty God there assigns to the Seed 
of the Woman, namely Curist. Pope Leo XIII. is reported to be a 
scholar. How he could venture to adopt Ipsa for Ipsr, if he were not 
blinded by some mysterious influence, is inexplicable. For further 
remarks on this perversion of those divine words, may I be allowed to 
refer to my note on Gen. iii. 15? The same Pope, Leo XIIL, in his 
Encyclic ‘* £terni Patris,” published on August 4th, 1879, ordered all 
men to take their Theology from Thomas Aquinas. But Thomas 
Aquinas rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In his Com- 
pendium Theologiz, cap. 224, tom. xix. p. 129 ed. Venet. 1787, he says, 
** Est ergo tenendum quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit.” See 
also his Summa Theol. Pars iii. c. 27, tom. xxiv. p- 133. Popes 
contradict one another, and themselves, and yet claim Infallibility ! 

' 1 Cor. xiii. 1—3. 

? Exod. xx. 5. Heb. xii. 29. 


ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 301 


affirm that their system of Christianity rests on the 
basis of Papal Supremacy, may they be led to consider 
whether, instead of being founded on a Rock, they 
are not building on the Sand! Are they not 
tempting others to do so? Are they not beguiling 
them to place their hopes on a false foundation, and 
so leading them on to everlasting destruction? If 
this is so, then their house will fall, and “ great will 
be the fall thereof.” * 


St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, resisted the 
doctrinal errors of the Bishops of Rome. His resist- 
ance to error, and maintenance of the truth, appear to 
have been signally blessed by the Divine Head of the 
Church. 

In due time, the Heresy, patronized by Zephyrinus 
and Callistus, was suppressed. In due time, the 
Truth, maintained by St. Hippolytus, prevailed at 
Rome. His memory was blessed,—and so much the 
more, we may believe, because he had rescued the 
Roman Church from a Heresy, patronized by two 
Roman Bishops; and because, in defiance of their 
threats, he held firmly the true faith, though reviled 
by them as a heretic. 

St. Hippolytus has ever been regarded as one of 
the most learned teachers of Christian doctrine. It 


is true that in a matter of discipline, he inclined to ¥ 


the rigorous notions of Novatian, as many pious and 
learned men did, But we have nota tittle of evidence 
3 Matth. vii. 27. 


802 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS 


that his orthodoxy as to articles of Faith was ever 
called in question. Indeed, there is an unanimous 
and continuous testimony.of more than sixteen 
centuries that he was one of the brightest luminaries 
of Christendom, and one of the most eminent doctors 
of the Church.* 

A marble Statue was erected in his honour soon 
after his martyrdom. Having been buried for many 
centuries, it was brought to light three hundred years 
ago, and was restored by the reverent care of a 
Cardinal and a Pope.. And the opponent of two 
Bishops of Rome, the Historian of their Heresy, the 
deliverer of the Church of Rome from the error of her 
own two Chief Pastors, Zephyrinus and Callistus, was 
enshrined in the Vatican, and is revered by Prelates, 
Cardinals, and Pontiffs of Rome.* 


In this newly-discovered Volume, a solemn caution 
has been given to the Church, and to the world, at 
this critical juncture. We need not hesitate to say, 


4 Cardinal Baronius bears the following testimony to St. Hippolytus 
(Annales ad A.D. 229):—‘‘ To the very great misfortune and detrimeut of 
the whole Catholic Church, many writings of this orthodox writer have 
perished ; but, as is agreed by the Eastern and Western Church, he is 
deservedly called a great ornament of them both.” Cardinal Mai 
thus speaks of St. Hippolytus and his Statue (Scriptorum Veterum 
Nova Collectio Vatican. Rom. 1825. Proleg. p. xxxv.), ‘‘ Hippolyti 
commentariorum in Danielis Vaticinium, in Vaticanis codicibus pars 
adhuc mediocris erat inedita quam libenter propter éamti Doctoris et 
Martyris reverentiam luce impertivi. Statuam ejus cum paschali cyclo 
operumque Catalogo inscripto prope Urbem in agro Verano Marcelli 
Card. Cervini auspiciis effossam, deinde a Pio IV.in Bibliotheca Vaticana, 
ubi adhuc asservatur, positam, in fronte libri mei incidendam curavi.” 


ON PRESENT ROMAN CLAIMS. 303 


that the warning is providential. Three centuries 
ago the Statue, to which we have referred, was dug 
up near Rome; it bore no name; but it had a Greek 
inscription engraven upon it, containing the titles of 
an Author’s Works. By a comparison of these titles 
with notices in ancient Writers, this Statue was 
recognized to be a Statue of St. Hippolytus, and as 
such, it was received into the Papal Library at Rome. 
It was restored to its pristine form under the auspices 
of that Pope, Pius the Fourth, who promulgated the 
Trent Creed, in which the Doctrine of Papal 
Supremacy is set forth as an Article of Faith. Three 
hundred years passed away. And now in our own 
age,—another discovery has been made—in a different 
quarter. An ancient Manuscript has been brought 
to light, from a monastic cloister of Mount Athos. 
On examination, it is found to state that its Author 
wrote a Work bearing one of the titles mentioned on 
the Statue—a Work “On the Universe.” Thus the 
disinterred Statue furnished the first clue for the 
discovery of the Author of the MS. found three 
centuries afterwards in the cloistral Library of 
Mount Athos. Other evidences have accrued ; and 
it is now firmly established, that the Author of the 
Treatise is St. Hippolytus. 

Great reason there is for gratitude to Almighty God, 
that He has thus watched over the work of His 
faithful soldier and servant, the blessed Martyr, 
Hippolytus. 

We of the Church of England may recognize in 


304 APPEAL ΤῸ ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 


this Treatise,a Catholic and Apostolic, yes, and a 
Roman, Vindication, of our own Reformation. Here 
a Roman Bishop, Saint and Martyr, supplies us with 
a defence of our own religious position with respect 
‘to Rome. In his “ Refutation of all Heresies,” we 
see a practical Refutation of that great Heresy, which 
either directly or indirectly, is at the root of many 
prevalent Heresies—a Refutation of the Heresy of 
Papal Supremacy, and of Papal Infallibility. 

Whenever then we are charged by Romish Divines 
with Heresy, and Schism, for not acknowledging the 
Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the Church, and 
Infallible Arbiter of the Faith, we may henceforth 
refer them to the marble Statue in the Lateran, and 
bid them listen to St. Hippolytus. 

Thankful, however, as we ought to be for this recent 
discovery, perhaps they who have cause to be most 
grateful, are the Clergy and Laity of Rome. Truth 
is to be prized above all things, especially in matters 
of Faith. Arguments from adversaries, real or 
supposed, and especially from contemporaneous ad- 
versaries, are often regarded with suspicion, and 
are rejected with scorn. But here the members of the 
Church of Rome may read a Treatise, written by one 
whose name they love and venerate, one who has 
no interests to serve, no passions to gratify; a 
Bishop, Doctor, Saint, and Martyr, of their own 
ancient Church. 

“He being dead yet speaketh.” ® 

5 Heb. xi. 4. 


CONCLUSION. 305 


He speaks to them from the grave, he speaks to 
them from primitive times—from the third century. 
He sits on his marble chair in the Lateran Museum 
at Rome, and teaches them there. 


One of the wisest Bishops of the Church of 
England, Bishop Sanderson, declared his deliberate 
judgment, that the Church of Rome, by enforcing 
unscriptural and uncatholic terms of Communion, is 
the main cause of the unhappy Schism by which 
Christendom is rent asunder. 

Nor is this all. The Infidelity now prevalent on 
the Continent of Europe, and its disastrous conse- 
quences, spiritual and social, are due in great measure 
to the recoil of human intelligence revolting from the 
false doctrines, superstitious worship, and exorbitant 
claims, of that form of religion and polity which is 
presented to it by the Church of Rome. 


May it please the merciful Providence which has 
awakened the voice of Hippolytus from its silence of 
sixteen centuries, so to bless its accents, that it may 
promote the Glory of God, the cause of Truth, the 
peace of Nations, and the Unity of His Church. 


APPENDIX A. 


THE following is from the Work of St. HIPPoLYTUS “ON THE 
UNIVERSE,” and is an addition to the Fragment already printed by 
Fabricius from that Work. See above, pp. 211—216. It has been 
supplied from a MS. in the Bodleian Library, Baroccian MSS. 
No. XXVI. See “Hearne’s Curious Discourses,” Vol. ii. p. 394, Lond. 
1773, where it was published with some conjectural emendations by 
Provost Langbaine. See also Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. pp- 157, 158. 
I am indebted for a revised collation of it to the kindness of Mr. 
Barrow and Mr. Southey, Fellows of Queen’s College, Oxford. The 
MS. contains also the Fragment in Fabricius beginning with ‘O 
ans τόπος ἐστὶν, p. 220. 


Fragmentum S. Hippolyti “ De 
Universo” ex MS. Barocc. 


Idem Fragmentum conjecturali 
emendatione a nobis restitu- 


26. tum.—Voces asterisco*®* dis- 
tinctas jam suffecerat Lang- 
benius. 


ε 4. , > A ΄ 
ὁ μετὰ δικαίων ἀριθμὸς διαμέ- 
3 / od , 
νει ἀνέκλειπτος ἅμα δικαίοις 
> ’ Ἀ , a Ἢ 
ἀγγέλοις καὶ πνεύμασι Θεοῦ καὶ 
τοῦ τούτου Λόγου ὡς τῶν δικαίων 
χορὸς ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν ἀγή- 
νΝ > 4 , ς cal 
pas καὶ ἀφθάρτως διαμένει ὑμῶν 
τὸν ἐπὶ ταῦτα προαγόμενον θεὸν διὰ 
EN ΒΙΩ 
τῆς τοῦ εὐτάκτου νομοθεσίας συνοις 
Ν e ¢ , > , ΄ 
καὶ πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ἀδιάληπτον ὕμνον 


ε ΄ , 3 \ se 

ὁ μέγας δικαίων ἀριθμὸς διαμένει 
ee isd , > 
ἀνέκλειπτος, ἅμα δικαίοις ἀγγέλοις 
καὶ πνεύμασι Θεοῦ καὶ τῷ τούτου 
Ady@'* ὡς ὁ τῶν δικαίων χορὸς Ἔ 
ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν ἀγήρως καὶ 
cA ΄ ς ~ \ Ee, | 
ἄφθαρτος διαμένει, ὑμνῶ ν τὸν ἐπὶ 
ταῦτα προαγόμενον Θεὸν διὰ τῆς τοῦ 
[EN BIQi] εὐτάκτου νομοθεσίας. 

- = 
Σὺν ois καὶ πᾶσα ἡ Κτίσις ἀδιάλειπ- 
LA > , > 4 “a -“ 

τον ὕμνον ἀνοίσει, ἀπὸ τῆς φθορᾶς 


APPENDIX. 


ἀνοίσει] ἀπὸτῆς φθορᾶς εἰς apbap- 
σίαν διαυγῆ καὶ καθαρῶ πνεύματος 
δεδοξασμένη οὐκ ὑπαναγκης δεσμὸς 
συνχοθήσεται ἀλλὰ ἐλευθερία ζῶσα 
ἑκούσιον τὸν ὕμνον ἅμα τοὺ ς ἐλευ- 
θερωθεῖσιν πάσης δουλίας ἀγγέλοις 
τε καὶ πνεύμασιν καὶ ἀνθρώποις 
αἰνέση τὸν πεποιηκότα τούτους ἐὰν 
σ. 
πισθέντες Ἕλλινες καταλείψεται 
τὴν ματαιότητα τῆς ἐπιγενους καὶ 
χρημάτων σπόρου σοφίας καὶ μὴ 
\ , ε , > , 
περὶ λέξεις ῥημάτων ἀσχολούμενοι 
\ “ 3 > A 
τὸν νοῦν eis πλανησοινωητε ἀλλὰ 
τοῖς θεοπνεύστοις προφήταις καὶ 
a “ , 
Θεοῦ καὶ λόγοις ἐξηγηταῖς ἐνχειρί- 
σαντες τὰς ἀκοὰς Θεοῦ πιστεύσηται 
ἔσεσθαι καὶ τούτων κοινωνοι καὶ τῶν 
μελλόντων τεύξασθαι ἀγαθῶν ἀμε- 
τρου τε οὐρανοῦ ἀνάβασιν καὶ τὴν 
ἐκεῖ βασιλείαν ὄψεσθαι φανερῶς Ὑ(3 
Θεὸς ἃ νῦν σεσιώπηται ἃ οὔτε 
3 > 
ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν 
a+ 3 ἣν ’ > , yey 
οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη 
> ΄“ lal 
ὅσα nroipacer ὃ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν 
t eae 4 τυ Zi > eo & , 
αὐτόν εφ᾽ οἷς ἀνευρω ὑμᾶς emt τού- 
τοις Κρινὼ παρεκαστα βοατο τέλος 
ἅπαντων ὡς τε καὶ Tw Ta εὑ πεποιη- 
κότι τὸν βίον λήξαντος δε τοῦ τέλος 
εξοκηλανϑ rn πρὸς κακιαν avonrot 
οἵ προσθε πονοι ἐπι τῇ καταστροφῇ 
cal > , /, 
τοῦ δραματος ἐξαθλω γενόμενω τότε 
χείρον καὶ ἐπισεσυμένως βιώσαντι 
πρότερόν ἐστιν ὕστερον μετανοή- 


σαντι πολλοῦ χρονου πολιτείαν 


1 ανοισὴ sed corr. in ανοισει. 

2 Pro ei yap, ut videtur. φανερώ- 
get Southeio debetur. 

3 ἐξόκειλαν" corr. in ἐξοκηλαν. 


Χ 


ut. 


307 


eis ἀφθαρσίαν διαυγῆ καὶ καθαροῦ 
πνεύματος δεδοξασμένη" οὐχ tr 
ἀνάγκης δεσμοῖς συνεχθήσεται, 
’ 
ἀλλὰ ἐλευθεριάξουσα ἑκούσιον 
\ σ a ΄“ > r 
τὸν ὕμνον ἅμα τοῖς ἐλευθερωθεῖσιν 
, , > A 
πάσης δουλείας ἀγγέλοις τε καὶ 
’ ; ΄ 
πνεύμασιν καὶ ἀνθρώποις αἰνέσει 
A 4 ΄ oA 
tov Πεποιηκότα. Τούτοις ἐὰν 
πεισθέντες Ἕλληνες καταλείψητε 
τὴν ματαιότητα τῆς ἐπιγείου καὶ 
ε 
ῥηματοσπόρου σοφίας, καὶ μὴ, 
XN , c / > 7 
περὶ λέξεις ῥημάτων ἀσχολούμενοι, 
τὸν νοῦν εἰς πλάνησιν ἀνῆτε, 
ἀλλὰ τοῖς Θεοπνεύστοις ἸΠροφήταις 
Ν “~ \ / > ~ > 
καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ Ad you ἐξηγηταῖς ἐγ- 
χειρίσαντες τὰς ἀκοὰς, Θεῷ πισ- 
’ 
τεύσητε, ἔσεσθε καὶ τούτων κοι- 
νωνοὶ, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τεύξεσθε 
a > a , 
ἀγαθῶν, ἀμέτρου τε οὐρανοῦ ἀνά- 
τὴν 
ὄψεσθε: φανερώσει γὰρ θεὸς ἃ 
ce 


Baow καὶ ἐκεῖ βασιλείαν 


νῦν σεσιώπηται, “ ἃ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς 
7 > 
εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ 
, > , > , “ c , 

καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη, ὅσα ἡτοί- 
ς ‘ ’ ~ > Pr 1 

pacer 6 Θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν" 

Dy “ , 

‘Eq’ οἷς ἂν εὕρω ὑμᾶς, ἐπὶ τούτοις 
a >» 2 ua ~ A 
κρινῶ, παρέκαστα βοᾷ τὸ 
΄, er a <a ‘ ~ ΟΝ 
τέλος ἁπάντων᾽ ὥστε καὶ τῷ τὸ εὖ 
πεποιηκότι, τοῦ βίου δὲ λήξαντος 

Α ΄ ? , A , 
τὸ τέλος ἐξοκείλαν τι πρὸς κακίαν, 
᾽ , Ε 1 « , , - EN," σι 
ἀνόνητοι Ἔ οἱ πρόσθε πόνοι, ἐπὶ τῇ 
καταστροφῇ τοῦ δράματος ἐξάθλῳ 
γενομένῳ" τῷ τε χεῖρον καὶ ἐπισε- 

ΡΝ 

συρμένως βιώσαντι πρότερον, ἔστιν 


1 x Cor. ii. 9. 
2 Vide Grabe, Spicileg. i. p. 14 et 
p- 327. Ezek. xviii. 243 xxxiii. 20. 


2 


808 


πονηρὰν ἐκνικῆσαι τῷ μετὰ τὴν 
μετάνοιαν χρονῷ ἀκριβείας, δὲ δεῖται 
πολλῆς ὑπὲρ τῆς μακραν ag @ * πε- 
ποιηκόσι 
ΜΕΝ 
σώμασι διαιτῆς χρια καὶ προσοχῆς 
πλείονος ἐστιν δυνατον yap tows 
ἀθρόας «αποκόψαι παθηςτροφδ... 
ἀλλὰ μετὰ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀν- 
θρωδ... .-- καισιας καὶ ἀδελφῶν 
βοηθείας καὶ ειλικρινους μετανοιας 
καὶ ouvexns pedetns κατορθοῦται 
καλὸν μὲν τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀγαθὸν 
δὲ καὶ τὸ ἁμαρτάνοντας μετανοεῖν, 
ὥσπερ ἄριστον τὸ ὑγιαίνειν ἀεὶ καλὸν 
Se καὶ τὸ ἀνασφᾶλαι μετὰ τὴν 
νόσον. 
τῷ Θεῷ δόξα. 

4 “Ὅσω, sed Ο in loc. raso rescript. 

δ᾽ στροφ (ut videtur). 

§ Post ἄνθρω desunt literze sex vel 
septem. 


APPENDIX. 


ὕστερον peravonoavrt πολλοῦ 
χρόνου πολιτείαν πονηρὰν ἐκ- 
νικῆσαι τῷ μετὰ τὴν μετάνοιαν 
χρόνῳ" ἀκριβείας δὲ δεῖται πολλῆς" 
ὥσπερ τοῖς μακρᾷ νόσῳ re- 
πονηκόσι. μὲν σώμασι διαίτης 
χρεΐα καὶ προσοχῆς πλείονος" ἔστιν 
δυνατὸν γὰρ ἴσως ἀθρόως ἀποκόψαι 
πάθης στρ οφὴν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ Θεοῦ 
δυνάμεως, καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἱκεσίας, * 
καὶ ἀδελφῶν βοηθείας καὶ εἰλικρινοῦς 
μετανοίας καὶ συνεχοῦς μελέτης 
κατορθοῦται" καλὸν μὲν τὸ μὴ ἅμαρ- 
τάνειν, ἀγαθὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἁμαρτάνοντα 
μετανοεῖν, ὥσπερ ἄριστον τὼ ὑγι- 
αίνειν ἀεὶ, καλὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀνασφῆλαι 
μετὰ τὴν νόσον. 
τῷ Θεῷ δόξα. 

3 Hine liquet Hippolytum nos- 
trum Novatiani de poenitentia pla- 
citis non fuisse mancipatum. 


APPENDIX 8. 


Showing that the recently-discovered Treatise was known 
to, and used by, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who died 


A.D. 457. 


Philosophumena, p. 315. 

Oi δὲ Περᾶται, }*Adéuns? ὁ 
Καρύστιος καὶ Ἑὐφράτης ὃ ὁ Περα- 
τικὸς, λέγουσιν ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον 
τινὰ, οὕτως καλοῦντες τοῦτον τριχῆ 
διῃρημένον. Ἔστι τὲ τριχῆς 4 διαι- 
ρέσεως παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸ μὲν ἕν μέρος, 
οἷον ἡ μία" ἀρχὴ καθάπερ πηγὴ 
μεγάλη, εἰς ἀπείρους τομὰς τῷ λόγῳ 
τμηθῆναι δυναμένη. Ἢ δὲ πρώτη 


\ ΄΄ > 5 
τομὴ καὶ προσεχεστέρα κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς, 


> 4 ς ‘ \ Φ᾿ > A 
ἐστὶν ἡ τριὰς, καὶ καλεῖται ἀγαθὸν 
τέλειον, μέγεθος πατρικόν. Τὸ δὲ 
δεύτερον μέρος τῆς τριάδος οἱονεὶ 
δυνάμεων ἀπείρων τι πλῆθος" τρί- 
τον, ἰδικόν" καὶ ἔστι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον 
tet ¢ . 7S 4 
ἀγέννητον, ὅθεν διαρρήδην λέγουσι 
τρεῖς θεοὺς, τρεῖς λόγους, τρεῖς 


Theodoret, Heret. Fab. i. 17. 

᾿Αδέμης δὲ ὁ Καρύστιος, καὶ 6 
Περατικὸς Εὐφράτης, ἀφ᾽ οὗ Πε- 
ρᾶται προσηγορεύθησαν οἱ τούτων 
eo “ , = \ 
ὁμόφρονες, ἕνα κόσμον εἶναι φασὶ 
τριχῆ διῃρημένον καὶ τὸ μὲν ἕν 
μέρος, οἷόν τινα πηγὴν εἶναι μεγά- 
λην, εἰς ἄπειρα διαιρεθῆναι τῷ λόγῳ 
δυνάμενον τὴν δὲ πρώτην τομὴν 
Τριάδα προσαγορεύουσι, καὶ καλοῦ- 

4 > \ ἐᾷ 
σιν αὐτὴν ἀγαθὸν τέλειον, μέγεθος 
/ A ‘4 ’ - , 

πατρικόν. Τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δυνάμεων 
ἀπείρων τὸ πλῆθος. Τὸ δὲ τρίτον 
καλοῦσιν ἰδικόν. Καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον 
ἀγέννητον λέγουσι, καὶ ὀνομάζουσι 
τρέϊς θεοὺς, τρεῖς λόγους, τρεῖς 
νοῦς, τρεῖς ἀνθρώπους. “Avaber δὲ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγεννησίας, καὶ τῆς πρώτης 


1 Hunc parallelismum indicavit Bernays apud Bunsen.:iv. p. xlv. 


2 Supra ᾿Ακέμβης ὃ Καρύστιος. Cod. Καροίστιος. 
4 Debebat δὲ τῆς τριχῆ διαιρ. Miller. 


Περατικός. 
μία. Miller. 


3 Cod. Ἐφράτης 
5 Fort. οἱονεὶ 


810 
- ~ > , € ’ 
νοῦς, τρεῖς ἀνθρώπους. “Exaoto 
~ nw / 
γὰρ μέρει τοῦ κόσμου τῆς διαιρέσεως 
\ 
διακεκριμένης, διδόασι καὶ θεοὺς καὶ 
‘ 
λόγους καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ Ta λοιπά. 
” a ‘ 
Ανωθεν δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγεννησίας καὶ 
΄“ “ Led > oe 
τῆς τοῦ κύσμου πρώτης τομῆς, ἐπὶ 
συντελείᾳ λοιπὸν τοῦ κόσμου καθεσ- 
/ ΄ δ΄ κ᾿ ΄ 
τηκότος, κατεληλυθέναι ἐπὶ τοῖς 
€ , , S'¢ / 
Ἡρώδου χρόνοις tpipun® τινα av- 
΄ 
θρωπον καὶ τρισώματον καὶ τριδύνα- 
5 cal 
μον, καλούμενον Χριστὸν, ἀπὸ τῶν 
τριῶν ἔχοντα τοῦ κόσμου μερῶν ἐν 
> = ΄ \ a“ / , 
αὐτῷ πάντα τὰ τοῦ κόσμου συγκρί- 
ματα καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις. Καὶ τοῦτο 
3 ? 
εἶναι θέλουσι τὸ εἰρημένον, ‘Ev 
4» . ΄“΄ “ A , ΄ 
ᾧ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς 
> A 
θεότητος σώματι. 7 -Κατενεχθῆναι 
΄ , 
δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπερκειμένων κόσμων 
, -“ > , lal 
δύο, τοῦ τε ἀγεννήτου καὶ TOU αὐτο- 
γεννήτου, εἰς τοῦτον τὸν κόσμον, ἐν 
τ lal “ , 
ᾧ ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς, παντοῖα δυνάμεων 
σπέρματα. Κατεληλυθέναι δὲ τὸν 
\ » > ἣν Ὁ , a 
Χριστὸν ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ ἀγεννησίας, iva 
διὰ τῆς καταβάσεως αὐτοῦ, πάντα 
-“" ~ 7 
σωθῇ 8 τὰ τριχῆ διῃρημένα. A 
\ sy Ν » * 
μὲν yap, φησὶν, ἔστιν ἄνωθεν κατε- 
> a 
νηνεγμένα, avedevoera Ot αὐτοῦ, τὰ 
‘ lal 
δὲ ἐπιβουλεύσαντα τοῖς κατενηνεγ- 
΄ > a en \ ΄ 
μένοις ἀφιεῖ εἰκῇ, καὶ κολασθέντα 
Ε ’ τὰ τ +: "ἢ ΄ \ 
ἀποπέμπεται. Avo δὲ εἶναι μέρη τὰ 
σωζόμενα λέγει, τὰ ὑπερκείμενα, 
> A nw 
ἀπαλλαγέντα τῆς φθορᾶς" τὸ δὲ 
τρίτον ἀπόλλυσθαι ὃν κόσμον 
” lal a ΄ 
ἴδιον καλεῖ. Ταῦτα καὶ οἱ Teparat. 
Philos. p. 318. 
ς ‘ , 
O δὲ πάνσοφος Σίμων οὕτως 
‘6 Cod. τριφυήν. 
9 Cod. ἀπόλυσθαι. 


7 Coloss. ii. 9 ubi σωματικῶς. 


APPENDIX. 


τοῦ κόσμου διαιρέσεως, παρ᾽ αὐτὴν 
A ~ ΄- 
τὴν τοῦ κόσμου συντέλειαν, ἐν τοῖς 
«ες 
Ἡρώδου χρόνοις κατεληλυθέναι τρι- 
φυῆ τινὰ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τρίσωμον, 
A , A a 
καὶ τριδύναμον, καλούμενον Χριστόν 
\ - / > , 
καὶ διελθεῖν τόν τε ἀγέννητον 
, ‘ \ > “ ‘ ω 
κόσμον, καὶ τὸν αὐτογενῆ, καὶ ἐλθεῖν 
> ’ 4 , > τ > , 
eis τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ἐν ᾧ ἐσμέν. 
Κατελθὼν δὲ ὁ Χριστὸς, τὰ μὲν 
cA , > ΄ 
ἄνωθεν κατενηνεγμένα ἐπανελθεῖν 
ἄνω παρασκευάσει, τὰ δὲ τούτοις 
> , ΄ ΄ 
ἐπιβουλεύσαντα παραδώσει κολάσει. 
Ν A ‘ > / , Ν 
Καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀγέννητον κόσμον, καὶ 
τὸν αὐτογενῆ, σωθήσεσθαι λέγουσι" 
a ee. , δ λον f 
τοῦτον δὲ τὸν κόσμον ἀπόλλυσθαι, 
a > A > , 
ὃν ἰδικὸν ὀνομάζουσι. 


Theodoret i. 1. 
Σίμων Se πρῶτος, 6 Σαμαρείτης 


8 Cod. σωθεῖ. 


APPENDIX. 


΄ Ε | ὦ Ψ 
λέγει: ἀπέραντον εἶναι δύναμιν, 
cr a 9 
ταυτὴν ῥίζωμα τῶν ὅλων εἶναι. 
¥ . ΄ 
Ἔστι δὲ, φησὶν, ἡ ἀπέραντος δύ- 
\ -“ θ᾽ «ς A 1 > ‘ 
ναμις τὸ πῦρ καθ᾽ avro,' οὐδὲν 
ἁπλοῦν καθάπερ οἱ πολλοὶ ἁπλᾶ 
λέ ἃ ‘A ‘ 2 4 
έγοντες εἶναι τὰ (de)? τέσσαρα 
΄ A “a > 
στοιχεῖα, Kal TO πῦρ ἁπλοῦν εἶναι 
᾿ > > ἽΝ Aa \ 
νενομίκασιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι τοῦ πυρὸς 
Α a “ ΄- 
τὴν φύσιν διπλῆν, καὶ τῆς διπλῆς 
’ ΄“ 
ταύτης καλεῖ τὸ μέν τι 3 κρυπτὸν, 
τὸ δὲ φανερὸν, κεκρύφθαι δὲ τὰ 
κρυπτὰ ἐν τοῖς φανεροῖς τὸ πῦρ,3 
καὶ τὰ φανερὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ὑπὸ τῶν 
κρυπτῶν γεγονέναι. Πάντα δὲ, 
, “~ 
φησὶ, νενόμισται τὰ μέρη τοῦ πυρὸς 
ς \ Ἂ tae , wy 
ὁρατὰ καὶ ἀόρατα φρόνησιν ἔχειν. 
Γέγονεν οὖν, φασὶν, ὁ κόσμος ἀγέν- 
vnTos ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πυρός. 
Ἤρξατο δὲ, φησὶν, οὕτως γίνεσθαι" 
ἐξ ῥίζας τὰς πρώτας τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς 
, “ A 
γενέσεως ὃ ἀγέννητος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς 
τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκείνου λαβών" ταύτας 
᾿Ὶ cys ’΄ \ , 
yap pitas γεγονέναι κατὰ συζυγίαν 
ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς, ἅς τινας καλεῖ νοῦν 
‘ Cees Ἁ \ wy 5 
καὶ ἐπίνοιαν, φωνὴν καὶ ὄνομα, 


λογισμὸν καὶ ἐνθύμησιν. 


Philos. p. 326. 
Μαρκίων δὲ ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Kép- 
ς , ’ A > ‘ 
δων ὁ τούτου διδάσκαλος, καὶ αὐτοὶ 
ὁρίζουσιν εἶναι τρεῖς τὰς τοῦ παντὸς 
> . > θὲ δί we ‘ 
ἀρχὰς, ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, ὕλην" τινὲς 
δὲ τούτων μαθηταὶ προστιθέασι, 
᾽ὔ > A , A 
λέγοντες ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, πονηρὸν, 
ὕλην. Οἱ δὲ πάντα, τὸν μὲν ἀγαθὸν 
1 Cod. καθ᾽ αὑτόν. 
4 τοῦ πυρός. 


τοι. Scott. 


2 Dele δὲ, ortum ex δ᾽. 
5 An leg. ἔννοιαν ? 
7 Leg. videtur of δὲ πάντες. Miller. 


311 


ὁ μάγος, τῆς τούτου κακοτεχνίας 
© > , 
ὑπουργὸς ἀνεφάνη. 
᾿ ΄- - ee Ὶ 

Οὗτος τοῦτον μῦθον ἐγέννησεν. 
7 Sak ΡΟΝ , e , 
Aretpoy τινὰ ὑπέθετο δύναμιν" ταύ- 
τὴν de ῥίζωμα τῶν ὅλων ἐκάλεσεν" 
Εἶναι δε αὐτὴν πῦρ ἔφησε, διπλῆν 
ἐνέργειαν ἔχον, τὴν μὲν φαινομένην, 
τὴν δὲ κεκρυμμένην" τὸν δὲ κόσμον 
γεννητὸν εἶναι, γεγενῆσθαι δὲ ἐκ 
τῆς φαινομένης τοῦ πυρὸς ἐνερ- 
γείας. 


Πρῶτον δε ἐξ αὐτῆς προβληθῆναι 
τρεῖς συζυγίας, ἃς καὶ ῥίζας ἐκά- 
λεσε᾽ καὶ τὴν μὲν πρώτην προσηγό- 
ρευσε νοῦν καὶ ἐπίνοιαν, τὴν δὲ 
δευτέραν, φωνὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν, τὴν 
δε τρίτην λογισμὸν καὶ ἐνθύμησιν. 


Theodoret 1. 24. 

Μαρκίων δε, καὶ Κέρδων ὁ τούτου 
διδάσκαλος, καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐκ τῆς 
Σίμωνος ἐξαπάτης ἔλαβον τῆς βλασ- 

’ Ν > A ἰλλ᾽ ee 

φημίας τὰς ἀφορμὰς, ἀλλ΄ ἑτέραν 
> ’ > , 58 , 
ἐκαινοτόμησαν ἀσεβείας ὁδόν. 

Ὁ δὲ Μαρκίων ὁ Ποντικὸς, ταῦτα 
παρὰ Κέρδωνος παιδευθεὶς, οὐκ 


Miller. 3 Cod. μέν 
6 Cod. τοὺς παντός. 


312 


‘ 
οὐδὲν ἄλλως πεποιηκέναι, τὸν δὲ 
‘ 
δίκαιον, of μὲν τὸν πονηρὸν, οἱ δὲ 
μόνον δίκαιον ὀνομάζουσι, πεποιη- 
Ν A 4 Ud > ~ 
κέναι δὲ Ta πάντα φάσκουσιν ἐκ τῆς 
\ 
ὑποκειμένης ὕλης" πεποιηκέναι yap 
οὐ καλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλόγως. ᾿Ανάγκη 
3 a 
yap τὰ γενόμενα ὅμοια εἶναι τῷ 
4 . A A "“ ΄ 
πεποιηκότι" διὸ καὶ ταῖς παραβολαῖς 
ταῖς εὐαγγελικαῖς οὕτως χρῶνται λέ- 
γοντες" ““ Οὐ δύναται δένδρον καλὸν 
‘ ΄“ 
καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν," ὃ καὶ τὰ 
tpn > a / gate ‘ 
ἑξῆς, εἰς τοῦτο φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι τὰ 
Τὸν 


"δὲ Χριστὸν υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ 


Μοὶ. Ὁ “a - 
ur αὐτοῦ κακῶς νομιζόμενα. 


a: Ὁ > “ , 2 A 
καὶ Ur αὐτοῦ πεπέμφθαι ἐπὶ σωτη- 
-” a δ », cd 
pla τῶν ψυχῶν, ov ἔσω ἄνθρωπον 
καλεῖ, ὡς ἄνθρωπον φανέντα λέγων 
> + SUA ΠΡ » 
οὐκ ὄντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ὡς ἔνσαρκον 
> » / , 
οὐκ ἔνσαρκον, δοκήσει πεφηνύτα, 
οὔτεγένεσινὑπομείνανταοὔτεπάθος, 
ἀλλὰ τῷ δοκεῖν. Σάρκα δὲ οὐ θέλει 
> τ: > 
ἀνίστασθαι" Τάμον δὲ φθορὰν εἶναι 
4 , , , 9 
λέγων κυνικωτέρῳ βίῳ προσάγων 
‘ ’ 
τοὺς μαθητὰς, ἐν τούτοις νομίζων 
λυπεῖν τὸν δημιουργὸν, εἰ τῶν ὑπ᾽ 
» a , 
αὐτοῦ γεγονότων ἢ ὡρισμένων ἀπ- 
ἔχοιτο. 


Philos. p. 327. 

Κήρινθος δὲ ὁ ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ 
ἀσκηθεὶς αὐτὸς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου 
θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι ἠθέλησεν, 

bs ae A , , > a 
add’ ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς, 
πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης 
oN ς ‘ A > , \ 
τῆς ὑπὲρ Ta ὅλα αὐθεντίας, καὶ 


> , A ς bd ΙΑ , 
ayvoovons τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα θεόν. 


8 S. Matth. vii. 18. 


APPENDIX, 


ἔστερξε τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν διδασ- 
καλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ηὔξησε τὴν ἀσέβειαν. 
Τέτταρας γὰρ ἀγεννήτους οὐσίας τῷ 
λόγῳ διέπλασε. Καὶ τὸν μὲν ἐκά- 
λεσεν ἀγαθόν τε καὶ ἄγνωστον, ὃν 
καὶ πατέρα προσηγόρευσε τοῦ 
Κυρίου" τὸν δὲ δημιουργόν τε καὶ 
δίκαιον, ὃν καὶ πονηρὸν ὠνόμαζε. 
Καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὴν ὕλην, κακήν 
τε οὖσαν, καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλῳ κακῷ τε- 
λοῦσαν. Τὸν δὲ δημιουργὸν περι- 
γενόμενον τοῦ κακοῦ, τὴν ὕλην λαβεῖν 
τε, καὶ ἐκ ταύτης δημιουργῆσαι τὰ 


σύμπαντα. 


Theodoret i. 3. 

Κατὰ δε τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον καὶ 
Κήρινθος ἑτέρας ἦρξεν αἱρέσεως. 
Οὗτος ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πλεῖστον δια- 
τρίψας χρόνον, καὶ τὰς φιλοσόφους 
παιδευθεὶς ἐπιστήμας, ὕστερον εἰς 
τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀφίκετο, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους 
μαθητὰς ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας προσηγορίας 


9 Corrig. προσάγει. Miller. 


APPENDIX, 


\? A > ‘ 
Tov δὲ Ἰησοῦν λέγει μὴ ἐκ παρθέ- 
νου γεγεννῆσθαι" γεγονέναι δὲ αὐτὸν 
ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας υἱὸν, ὅμοιον 
τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ διενη- 
, > ’ Ἁ 
νοχέναι ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ σωφρο- 
’΄ 
σύνῃ καὶ συνέσει ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς 
’ 
λοιπούς. Καὶ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα 
/ 3 > \ > ~ ς ‘ 
κατεληλυθέναι εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ 
\ 
τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας τὸν Χριστὸν ev 
δι an 
εἴδει περιστερᾶς, καὶ τότε κηρύξαι 
» 
τὸν ἄγνωστον πατέρα καὶ δυνάμεις 
ἐπιτελέσαι. Πρὸς δὲ τῷ τέλει τοῦ 
Ψ > “a A A > A 
πάθους ἀποπτῆναι τὸν Χριστὸν ἀπὸ 
τοῦ υἱοῦ" 2 πεπονθέναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, 
A ‘ \ > a , 
τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἀπαθῆ μεμενηκέναι, 
πνεῦμα Κυρίου ὑπάρχοντα. 


Philos. p. 328. 

Ἕτεροι δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν πάντα 
τοῖς προειρημένοις λέγουσιν, ἕν 
μόνον ἐνδιαλλάξαντες ἐν τῷ τὸν 
Μελχισεδὲκ ὡς δύναμίν τινα ὑπ- 
εἰληφέναι, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ 
πᾶσαν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν, οὐ * κατ᾽ 
εἰκόνα δὲ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν θέ- 


λουσιν. 


Philos. p. 329. 

Ἕτεροι δὲ αὐτῶν ὃ τῇ τῶν Non- 

τιανῶν αἱρέσει προσκείμενοι, τὰ μὲν 

περὶ τὰ γύναια καὶ Μοντᾶνον 
ς I A A \ Ν a 

ὁμοίως δοκοῦσι, τὰ δὲ περὶ τῶν 

1 Cod. γεγενῆσθαι. 


3 Cod. λέγουσι. 
6 Pro καὶ fort. κατά, Miller. 


4 οὗ. 


2 *Incov. Scott. 
Scott. 
a An ἀποπτῆναι, avoldsse? 


Pa 


313 


> > ’ 
ὠνόμασεν. ᾿Ἐδίδαξε δὲ οὗτος, ἕνα 
\ 3 ὸ cal ὅλ \ > 
μεν εἰναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν, οὐκ 
ἢ," ὧδ ΄ ,΄᾿ 
αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργὸν, 
ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχωρισμένας, 
\ a ΡΟΝ. ΄ 
καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας. Τὸν 
Ἰησοῦν δὲ, τοῖς ᾿Εβραίοις παρα- 
πλησίως ἔφησε κατὰ φύσιν ἐξ 
ἀνδρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι καὶ γυναικὸς, 
τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τῆς Μαρίας, σωφρο- 
σύνῃ δὲ καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ τοῖς 
΄ s 
ἄλλοις ἀγαθοῖς διαπρέψαι. Τὸν de 
Χριστὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς ἄνωθεν 
εἰς αὐτὸν κατελθεῖν, καὶ τηνικαῦτα 
\ > ’ ’ A S 
τὸν ἀγνοούμενον κηρύξαι Θεὸν, καὶ 
τὰς ἀναγράπτους ἐπιτελέσαι θαυ- 
, \ ‘ 4 “ 
ματουργίας. Κατὰ δὲ τὸν τοῦ 
πάθους καιρὸν, ἀποστῆναι" μὲν τὸν 
Χριστὸν, τὸ δὲ πάθος ὑπομεῖναι τὸν 
Ἰησοῦν. 


Theodoret ii. 6. 


κ᾿ ‘ a 

Τοὺς δὲ Μελχισεδεκιανοὺς, τμῆμα 

΄ a ‘ 

μὲν εἶναι τούτων φασὶ, καθ᾽ ἕν δὲ 

΄σ Ἁ 
μόνον διαφωνεῖν, τὸ τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ 
δύναμιν τινὰ καὶ θείαν καὶ μεγίστην 
μ μ 

ε , > ΘΝ, ‘ > “- 

ὑπολαμβάνειν, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα δὲ αὐτοῦ 

ah 9 ‘ 

τὸν Χριστὸν γεγενῆσθαι. Ἦρξε de 

τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης ἄλλος Θεόδοτος, 
ἀργυραμοιβὸς τὴν τέχνην. 


Theodoret iii. 2. 

Τινὲς δὲ αὐτῶν τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστά- 
σεις τῆς θεότητος Σαβελλίῳ παρα- 
πλησίως ἠρνήσαντο, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι 
λέγοντες καὶ Πατέρα, καὶ Yidv, καὶ 


Vide not. Phil. 247, 43—9. 
5 Montanistarum sc. 


814 


ὅλων Πατέρα δυσφημοῦσιν, αὐτὸν 
3 
εἶναι υἱὸν καὶ πατέρα λέγοντες, 
ὁρατὸν καὶ ἀύρατον, γεννητὸν καὶ 
> , 4 ‘ > , 
ἀγέννητον, θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον. 
3 - 
Οὗτοι τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἀπὸ Νοητοῦ 
τινὸς λαβόντες. 


Philos. p. 329. 
« , A Ν \ ~ ‘ 
Ομοίως δὲ καὶ Νοητὸς τῷ μὲν 
΄ 1 
γένει. ὧν Σμυρναῖος, ἀνὴρ ἀκριτό- 
΄ ΄ 
μυθος καὶ ποικίλος, εἰσηγήσατο 
, a > > , A 
τοιάνδε αἵρεσιν ἐξ ᾿Επιγόνου τινὸς 
> , , κ᾿ 
eis Κλεομένην χωρήσασαν, καὶ 
σ -» “ Ba 4 , 
οὕτως ἕως νῦν ἐπὶ τοὺς διαδόχους 
, , - A , 
διαμείνασαν, λέγων ἕνα τὸν Πατέρα 
καὶ Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων᾽ τοῦτον πάντα 
“- , ΄ > 
πεποιηκότα, ἀφανῆ μὲν τοῖς οὖσι 
σ > , Ἂ ΄“ 
γεγονέναι ὅτε ἠβούλετο φανῆναι 
᾿ , “ .”Ar Ξ κ᾿ - 
de τότε ὅτε ἠθέλησε᾽ καὶ τοῦτον 
Ψ “ 
εἶναι ἀόρατον ὅτε μὴ ὁρᾶται" ὁρατὸν 
A “ € a“ mS Ae , @ 
δὲ, ὅταν ὁρᾶται" ἀγέννητον δὲ, ὅταν 
\ a ᾿ ¢ 
μὴ γεννᾶται" γεννητὸν δὲ, ὅταν γεν- 
φ΄᾿ > , > ~ A: =D , 
νᾶται ἐκ παρθένου, ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνα- 
«“ , ΄ δ 
τον, ὅταν μὴ πάσχῃ μήτε θνήσκῃ 
Ὁ ἐς \ ἢ ’ , 
ἐπὰν δὲ πάθῃ προσέλθῃ, πάσχειν 
ad a 
καὶ θνήσκειν τοῦτον τὸν πατέρα" 
αὐτὸν υἱὸν νομίζουσι κατὰ καιροὺς 
’ 
καλούμενον πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα. 
4 
Τούτων τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκράτυνε 
΄ < 
Κάλλιστος, ov τὸν βίον ἐκτεθείμεθα 
> a a oe 
ἀσφαλῶς," ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς αἵρεσιν 


7 Cod. ποικῖλος. 


APPENDIX. 


ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, παραπλησίως Te’ 
᾿Ασιανῷῃ: Νοητῷ. Κατὰ τούτων 
συνέγραψεν ᾿Απολινάριος, ὁ τῆς 
\ , ε ~ / pO 2 
κατὰ Φρυγίαν ἱερᾶς πόλεως ἐπί- 
σκοπος γεγονὼς, ἀνὴρ ἀξιέπαινος, 
καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ 
τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προσειληφώς. 
Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Μιλτιάδης, καὶ 
᾿Απολλώνιος, καὶ ἕτεροι συγγραφεῖς. 
Κατὰ δὲ Πρόκλου τῆς αὐτῆς ai- 
ρέσεωςπροστατεύσαντος συνέγραψε 
r fae e Ν 4 6 > Ul 6 
dios, ov καὶ πρόσθεν ἐμνήσθημεν. 


Theodoret iii. 3. 

ae > 

Ὃ δὲ Nonros, Σμυρναῖος μὲν ἦν 
τὸ γένος, ἀνενεώσατο δε τὴν αἵρεσιν, 
4 > , , 7 ’ 
ἣν ᾿Ἐπίγονος μέν τις οὕτω καλού- 

“ 4 
μενος ἀπεκύησε πρῶτος, Κλεομένης 
δὲ παραλαβὼν ἐβεβαίωσε. Ταῦτα 
δέ ἐστι τῆς αἱρέσεως τὰ κεφάλαια. 
Ἕνα φασὶν εἶναι Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, 
΄“ e a 5 “ 

τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν᾽ ἀφανῆ μεν 
ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα ἂν 
βούληται καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον 
εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν 
καὶ ἀγέννητον ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ 
ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου 
~ > U . 
γεννηθῆναι ἠθέλησε 


> A 
ἀθάνατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ 


> “a ‘ 
ἀπαθῆ καὶ 
A 
θνητόν. ᾿Απαθὴς yap ὧν, φησὶ, τὸ 
΄-“- ~ , , , 
τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέ- 
a ᾽ 
μεινε. Τοῦτον καὶ Ὑἱὸν ἀνομάζουσι 
, a 
καὶ Πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο 
κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. Νοητιανοὶ 
, € , A σ΄ 
προσηγορεύθησαν οἱ τήνδε τὴν αἵ- 
΄ 
ρεσιν στέρξαντες. 
A 
Ταύτης μετὰ τὸν Νοητὸν ὑπερ- 


8 Fort. ἐκτεθείμεθα σαφῶς. Miller. 


APPENDIX. 


3 / Ae > 
ἀπεγέννησεν" ἐξ ὧν ἀφορμὰς λαβὼν 
Ν > ἣν ς a " Ἐ \ 
καὶ αὑτὸς ὁμολογῶν ἕνα εἶναι τὸν 
, cal 
πατέρα καὶ θεὸν τοῦτον δημιουργὸν 
“~ \ “a > 
TOU παντὸς, τοῦτον δὲ εἶναι υἱὸν 
t Peed \ ‘ baer J , 
ὀνόματι μὲν λεγύμενον καὶ ὀνομαζό- 
πον \ a Ψ ” 
μενον, οὐσίᾳ δὲ [ἕν 9] εἶναι, πνεῦμα 
A \ Φ A > μά td Ψ 
yap, φησὶν, 6 θεὸς οὐχ ἕτερόν ἐστι 
\ \ x 4 a ¢€ ον ΄ \ \ 
παρὰ τὸν λόγον ἢ ὁ λόγος παρὰ τὸν 
as | > a 
θεόν" ἕν οὖν τοῦτο πρόσωπον ὀνό- 
\ 
ματι μὲν μεριζύμενον, οὐσίᾳ δὲ ov. 
Τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἕνα εἶναι θεὸν 
> 4 A cal , 
ὀνομάζει καὶ σεσαρκῶσθαι λέγει. 
Καὶ τὸν μὲν κατὰ σάρκα ὁρώμενον 
Q ’ Ἂν 
καὶ κρατούμενον υἱὸν εἶναι θέλει," 
A “-“ 
τὸν δὲ ἐνοικοῦντα πατέρα, ποτὲ μὲν 
“ - 2 , ’ 
τῷ Νοητοῦ " δόγματι περιρρηγνύ- 
μενος,3 
>? Ἁ ΄ 
ἀσφαλὲς κρατῶν. 
Κάλλιστος. 


Ν Ἁ “A 
ποτὲ δὲ τῷ Θεοδότου, μηδὲν 
Ταῦτα τοίνυν 


Philos. p. 330. 
Ἑρμογένης δέ τις καὶ αὐτὸς 
θελήσας τι λέγειν, ἔφη τὸν θεὸν ἐξ 
ὕλης συγχρόνου καὶ ὑποκειμένης τὰ 


‘ . 
πάντα πεποιηκέναι ἀδυνάτως γὰρ 


” \ \ \ ἐξ ἘΠΕῚ, a x 
ἔχειν τὸν θεὸν μὴ οὐχὶ ἐξ ὄντων Ta 


γενόμενα ποιεῖν. 


Philos. p. 330. 


Ἕτεροι δέ τινες ὡς καινόν τι 
a / 
παρεισάγοντες ἐκ πασῶν αἱρέσεων 
ἐρανισάμενοι ξένην βίβλον σκευ- 
, > 4 > 
ἄσαντες “HAxaoat* τινος ἐπόονο- 
- . > \ a 
μαζομένην, οὗτοι τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς τοῦ 
παντὸς ὁμοίως ὁμολογοῦσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ 
a , A 1,9 > 
θεοῦ γεγονέναι, Χριστὸν δὲ ἕνα οὐχ 


9 Addidimus ἕν. Miller. 


mepipny . . μενος, duabus literis evanidis. 


1 Cod. θέλειν. 


815 


, 

ἥσπισε Κάλλιστος, ἐπιθήκας τινὰς 
‘ > > ͵ ΄- , 

καὶ οὗτος ἐπινοήσας τῇ δυσσεβείᾳ 

τοῦ δόγματος. 


Theodoret i. το. 
ὋὉ δὲ Ἑρμογένης ἐξ ὑποκειμένης 
ὕλης καὶ συναγεννήτου τὸν Θεὸν ἔφη 
δημιουργῆσαι τὰ πάντα. ᾿Αδύνατον 


γὰρ ὑπέλαβεν ὁ ἐμβρόντητος καὶ τῳ 


Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων, ἐκ μὴ ὄντων 
δημιουργεῖν. 


Theodoret ii. 7. 

Oi δὲ Ἑλκεσαῖοι, ἔκ τινος ’EX- 
κεσαϊ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἄρξαντος τὴν 
προσηγορίαν λαβόντες, ἐκ διαφόρων 
αἱρέσεων μύθους ἐρανισάμενοι, τὴν 
Καὶ 
περὶ μὲν τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν συμ- 
φωνοῦσιν ἡμῖν. Ἕνα γὰρ ἀγέννητον 
2 (οά. Νοητῷ. 3. Cod. 
4 Titulus rubricatus "EAxacatrat. 


’ 
οἰκείαν συντεθείκασι πλάνην. 


916 APPENDIX. 


aA be ‘ » 
ὁμολογοῦσιν, GAN’ εἶναι τὸν μὲν ἄνω 
μ4 ree | ‘ , > 
ἕνα, αὐτὸν δὲ μεταγγιζόμενον ev 
κ \ 
σώμασι [πολλοῖς 5] πολλάκις, Kal 
a \ >? ~ ? ~ e¢ , \ 
νῦν δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὁμοίως [more 
μὲν ἐκ Tod θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ποτὲ 
- \ 
δὲ πνεῦμα γεγονέναι, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ 
παρθένου, ποτὲ δὲ οὔ. Καὶ τοῦτον 
δὲ μετέπειτα ἀεὶ ἐν σώμασι μετταγ- 
͵ \ 2 [οὶ \ ‘\ 
γίζεσθαι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς κατὰ καιροὺς 
δείκνυσθαι. 


Χρῶνται δὲ ἐπαζοι]δαῖς καὶ 
βαπτίσμασιν ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν στοιχείων 
ὁμολογίᾳ. Σεσόβηνται δὲ περὶ 
Ἀ 
ἀστρολογίαν καὶ μαθηματικὴν, καὶ 
ἰοὺ 5 TL \ δὲ φ 
μαγικοῖς. ρογνωστικοὺς δὲ ἑαυ- 


\ , 
τοὺς λέγουσιν. 


" Vocis πολλοῖς vestigia exstant sed non prorsus certa. Miller. 


λέγουσι, Kal τοῦτον τῶν ἁπάντων 
καλοῦσι δημιουργόν. Χριστὸν δὲ 
> μή ’ > A A A A 
οὐχ ἕνα λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν ἄνω, 
τὸν δὲ κάτω. Καὶ τοῦτον πάλαι 
a > , A ‘ 
πολλοῖς ἐνῳκηκέναι, ὕστερον δὲ 
κατεληλυθέναι" τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν, ποτὲ 
A mm, οἷν 
μὲν ἐκ TOU Θεοῦ εἶναι φησὶ, ποτὲ δὲ 
a a \ \ a 
πνεῦμα καλεῖ, ποτὲ δὲ παρθένον 
Ἔν ἄλλοις δὲ 
Καὶ 


τοῦτον δὲ πάλιν μετενσωματοῦσθαι, 


ἐσχηκέναι μητέρα. 
συγγράμμασιν οὐδὲ τοῦτο. 


καὶ εἰς ἄλλα ἰέναι σώματα λέγει, καὶ 
καθ᾽ ἕκαστον καιρὸν διαφόρως δείκ- 
νυσθαι. ᾿Ἐπῳδαῖς δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων 
ἐπικλήσεσι καὶ οὗτοι κέχρηνται; καὶ 
βαπτίσμασιν ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν στοιχείων 
ὁμολογίᾳ. ᾿Αστρολογίαν δὲ, καὶ 
μαγικὴν, καὶ μαθηματικὴν ἠσπάζοντο 
πλάνην, καὶ Προγνωστικοὺς ἑαυτοὺς 
προσηγόρευον. Τὸν δὲ ἀπόστολον 
παντελῶς ἠρνήθησαν᾽ καὶ βίβλον δέ 
τινα συντεθείκασιν, ἣν ἐκ τῶν 
οὐρανῶν ἔφασαν πεπτωκέναι. Ταύ- 
της τὸν ἀκηκοότα ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν 
λαμβάνειν παρ᾽ ἣν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐδωρή- 
σατο. 


6 Literze 


ἄστρ plane evanide. Post μαγικοῖς excidit fortasse ἐπτόηνται. Miller, 


APPENDLAYG, 
On the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp. 


THE mention of St. POLYCARP, the disciple of St. John, and 
Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, whose name occurs not unfrequently 
in the foregoing pages, suggests an occasion for submitting a ques- 
tion to the consideration of the reader, in reference to the History 
of his Martyrdom, as narrated in the contemporary LETTER of the 
Church of Smyrna, and transcribed by Caius, supposed by some 
(e.g. by Ussher) to be, perhaps, Caius the Roman Presbyter 
(mentioned above, chap. iii.), from the copy of St. Irenzeus, who had 
conversed with St. Polycarp. (See Eccl. Smyrn. Epistola de S. 
Polycarpi Martyrioin Patr. Apostol. Coteler. ii. p. 204, Amstel. 1724, 
or in Bishop Jacobson’s edition of the Apostolic Fathers, ii. p. 604, 
ed. 1863.) 

In that, interesting narrative of St. Polycarp’s Martyrdom it is 
related (cap. 16), that the body of the venerable Bishop not being 
consumed by the fire which was kindled by the heathen officers, in 
order that he might be burnt therein, orders were given to the 
executioner to pierce him with a short sword. The original words 
of the. Letter are as follows, πέρας οὖν ἰδόντες of ἄνομοι οὐ δυνάμενον 
αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς δαπανηθῆναι, ἐκέλευσαν προσελθόντα αὐτῷ 
κομφέκτορα παραβῦσαι ξιφίδιον. The Letter then proceeds to say,— 
according to the received reading of the passage,—xai τοῦτο ποιή- 
σαντος, ἐξῆλθε TIEPISTEPA KAI πλῆθος αἵματος, ὥστε κατασβέσαι τὸ 
πῦρ, z.e.“a Dove came forth, and a stream of blood, so as to quench 
the fire.” 

The old Latin version is as follows, “ Quumque hoc ita fuisset 


- 


318 APPENDIX. ' 


effectum, ecce subito fluente sanguinis copia COLUMBA processit de 
corpore, statim sopitum cruore cessit incendium.” But the DOVE, 
which is so strangely combined in this passage with the stream of 
blood, appears to owe its origin to an erroneous reading. Eusebius 
had it notin his copy. He has transcribed the LETTER, nearly 
verbatim, into his History, and writes thus (Euseb. iv. 15), ἐκέλευσαν 
κομφέκτορα mapaBioa ξίφος, καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσαντος ἐξῆλθε πλῆθος 
αἵματος. Nor had Nicephorus any mention of the Dove in his MS. 
of the LETTER. His words are (iii. 35) ἐκέλευόν τινα vv Sar ξίφει τὸν 
ἅγιον ἔξωθεν" οὗ δὴ γενομένου πλῆθος αἵματος ἐξ ἐῤῥύη, ὡς ἱκανῶς 
ἔχειν καταμαραίνειν τὴν ἀκμὴν τοῦ πυρός. 

If the Dove had been mentioned in the Letter, as read by Eusebius 
and Nicephorus, it is not likely that they would have omitted to 
notice so singular a circumstance. See Bishop Jacobson’s note, 
pp. 645, 646, who enumerates various conjectures on the passage, by 
Le Moyne, Dr. Jortin, Ruchat, Whiston, and Allan. 

In short, the words IIEPISTEPA’ KAI‘ appear to be corrupt, and 
ought, probably, to be amended to ΠΕΡΙ STY’PAKA, i.e. about the 
λα. “No sooner did the executioner pierce the body with his 
steel, than a stream of blood flowed «fon the haft of the weapon, so 
as to quench the fire.” The word στύραξ signifies ξύλον τοῦ ἀκοντίου 
(Ammon. Valckenaer, p. 133), and sometimes means the handle of 
a smaller weapon,—as here. 

This correction has now been approved and accepted by Lagarde 


(rel. jur. Eccl. Graec. p. 84), and by Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn 
(Patr. Apostol. Martyr. Polyc. p. 157, ed. 1876). 





On a Passage in St. Fustin Martyrs Dialogue with 
Trypho the Few. 


Let me pass from St. Polycarp’s Martyrdom to an incident in the 


history of St. Justin, who suffered asa Martyr at Rome about the 
same time as St. Polycarp at Smyrna. 


At the close of that interesting Dialogue—the most interesting that 
has been preserved to us from early Christian Literature—the Dialogue 
of St. Justin with Trypho the Jew at Ephesus, Trypho expresses the 


APPENDIX. 319 


pleasure and profit he had derived from the colloquy on the claims of 
Christianity to be regarded as the fulfilment of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion, and says that he would be thankful for more frequent opportu- 
nities of such edifying intercourse, but that he must be content with 
asking Justin to bear him in his friendly remembrance, inasmuch as 
Justin was on the point of departing on a voyage to another country 
The original words, as they are now read in all the editions, are, ἐπειδὴ 
πρὸς TH ἀναγωγῇ εἶ (i.e. txasmuch as you are on the point of em- 
barking) καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ΤΊ ΛΟΓΊΕΙΣΘΑΙ προσδοκᾷς, μὴ ὄκνει ὡς φίλων 
ἡμῶν μεμνῆσθαι. For TI ΛΟΓΊΕΙΣΘΑΙ (which is manifestly a corrupt 
reading) Thirlby conjectured ναυτιλεῖσθαι, 10 set satl ; the Benedic- 
tine Editor Maran would read πλοῦν γενέσθαι, which Otto approves ; 
at the same time he suggests πλοῦν ποιεῖσθαι. All agree that the 
words mean since.you are in daily expectation of being on the sea, 
do not deem it irksome to remember us as friends. None of the 
above conjectures appear to be quite satisfactory. May I be 
allowed to offer another? For προσδοκᾷς TI AOTIEISOAI, I would 
suggest προσδοκᾷς ΠΕΛΑΓΊΕΙΣΘΑΙ, i. 6. you expect to be on the high 
seas. Πελαγιεῖσθαι is the future infinitive of πελαγίζομαι, which, as 
well as πελαγίζω, is used in this sense. See D’Orville’s Chariton, 
viii. 6, p. 697, ναῦς ἔχων μεγάλας ἐπελαγί ἕετο. St. Justin soon after 
this Dialogue with Trypho left Ephesus, probably for Rome, where 
he suffered Martyrdom, about A.D. 167. 


THE END. 





GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON, 


A NEW EDITION OF 


LHE HOLY τ, 


With Introductions and Notes by 
CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Bishop ΟΕ LINCOLN. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT, 


In the Authorized Version, with Introduction, Notes, and Index, 


In Parts. 
PART Bo Fs the 
I. Genesis and Exodus . 014 0 
II. Leviticus, erga 
, Deuteronomy . O12 0 
111. Joshua, Judges, Rich. . ὁ δ᾽ Ὁ 
IV. Books of Samuel . : ὦ. 7. Ὁ 


V. Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, 
Nehemiah, Esther . o 15 o 
VI. Book of Job . 5 + Ὁ. 7..}Ὁ 


VII. Psalms . ; Ξ Ot Ὁ 
VIII. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 

SongofSolomon . ὁ 9 ὁ 

IX. Isaiah . 4 : - O10 0 


X. Jeremiah, Lamenta- 











In Volumes, 


VOL. 4s. a 
I. The Pentateuch τ τὰ τἂν 
II. Joshua to Samuel οἵδ 0 

III. Kingsto Esther . ΟΝ 


IV. Job to Song of Solomon. σ 5 ὁ 
V. Isaiah to Ezekiel . ky, yee 


VI. Daniel, Minor Bib a 
and Index . rs o15 0 





£46 0 0 








TESTAMENT, 


With Introductions, Notes, and Index. 





tions, Ezekiel . 016 o 
XI. Daniel . 4 2 9 5 “ὁ 
XII. Minor Prophets . wie 9 ὁ 
Index . * . 220: 2° Ὁ 
46 60 
In Parts. 

PART 4 «5. ὦ 
I. Gospels . ©0116 o 
II. Acts of the Apostles © 8 o 
III. St. Paul’s Epistles . Zig. Ὁ 

IV. General Epistles, Apoca- 
lypse, Index °16 oO 
43 30 








In Volumes. 
VOL. 


I. Gospels and Acts of the 
Apostles . ὃ me 


4 3. a3 


3 90 


II. Epistles, Apocalypse, and 
Index . : 117 ὁ 


43 0 o 





Any Part, or any Volume, may be had separately. 





RIVINGTONS : LONDON, OXFORD, & CAMBRIDGE. 


ἐν ΜΝ 


je 


ei 
ὟΝ 
ten. 








=e RETMDN  .CIDCLULATIALAL Nene re en Ὁ P 
Ts 
a 





RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 
or to the L 
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
Bidg. 400, Richmond Field Station | 


University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 





ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
(415) 642-6233 
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
to NRLF 
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days ° | 
prior to due date 





DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 





AUG 4 1989 






































Sealtaee: 
Sp te 
a 


a 


eee 


a. 


mth a i ie iP ih 


= 


eNews 





